A PLAIN AND RATIONAL 

ACCOUNT 

OF 

THE CATHOLIC FAITH, 

BY THE 

REV. ROBERT MANNING-. 



A PLAIN AND 



RATIONAL ACCOUNT 

OF THE 

CATHOLIC FA mis 

WITH A 

PREFACE AND APPENDIX, 

IN VINDICATION OF 
FROM OLD CALUMNIES 

REVIVED & COLLECTED IN A SCURRILOUS LIBEL 

ENTITLED, 

A PROTESTANT'S RESOLUTION, &c. ' 7 

TO WHICH IS ANNEXED, 

The Reformed Churches proved destitute of a Lawful Ministry. 

BY TKE^- 

REY. R/MANNING, 

author of the shortest way to end disputes about religion, 
and England's conversion & reformation compared, etc 



Sanctify the Lord Christ in your Heart, being always ready to 
satisfy every one that asketh yon a Reason of that Hope which 
is in you. 1 Pet. Chap. III. vet. 15. 



PUBLISHED BY SYLVESTER TYRRELL, BOOKSELLER, 81, QUAY. 



TO THE 

RIGHT REV. NICHOLAS FOR AN, D. D. 

CATHOLIC BISHOP OF WATERFOKD AND IHSMORE. 



My Lord, 

I beg leave most respectfully to dedicate to your Lordship^ 
this reprint of the Rev. Robert Manning's justly celebrated wort y 
deeming it an extremely useful publication at the present era, when 
so many of our truth-seeking dissenting brethren evince a laudable 
desire to become acquainted with the real doctrines of our Holy 
Religion ; despite the virulent invectives and off refuted calumnies 
of the inveterate and self interested defamers of the ancient faith. 
3Iy sole ambition in under taking this re-publication of so useful a 
work, was to place at the disposal of the Stjehsrs after truth, and of 
the humbler classes, a Work, combining information of the ?7io.st 
important nature, and in a form, the cheapness ofwlhich, might ren- 
der it attainable by all who would rendasundc? the web of sophistry 
with which the vilifiers of the ancient faith haue and still endeavour 
to divide the seamless garment. If my endeavours meet with youp 
Lordship's kind patronage and approbation, I shall consider my- 
self amply recompensed for my exertions, to awaken in the mind 
of every Catholic, the memory of the pious author, who deserves to 
be enshrined in grateful remembrance ; ranking, as he merits so 
highly, amid the polemical writers of his day, and having contri- 
buted so much to refute error by his numerous and estimable wri- 
tings, exhibiting the truth by plain, yet irrefragable argument : 
and now, my Lord, hoping for your countenancing this effort on 
my part } 

I remain wiik the most profound respect, 
Your Lo? aship , s 
Most devoted and humble Servant, 

C y r T'T?'-T'77TJ TVIJ I? V T T 



ADDRESS 

TO THE MOST EEV. AND EIGHT EEV. 

THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND CLERGY 

OF IRELAND* 



In offering for sale a new and cheap edition of 
the Rev. Robert Manning's plain and rational ac- 
count of the Catholic faith, that should be possess- 
ed by every Catholic that has the means of pur- 
chasing a copy ; to defend the faith that was in 
*hem from the insulters of their religion and their 
country. I need not mention the names of the 
champions of the Catholic church, whose works 
stand unanswered : the late ever to be lamented 
Dr. Doyle, his grace the most Rev. Dr M'Hale, 
archbishop of Tuam, Rev; Thomas Maguire, P. P. 
of Ballinamore, the Rev. John Sinnott, president of 
St. Peter s college, Wexford, and that opposer of 
prosyliters the Rev. Mr. Darcey of Bally hale, Co. 
Kilkenny. Thank God, the days of persecution 
are past, and an era of toleration has at length com- 
menced ! the pious and learned author is entitled 
to rank high amongst these distinguished cham- 
pions of the Catholic faith. The name of Manning 
will be long enshrined in the grateful memory of 
every Catholic. His various works of controversy 
are held in the highest estimation amongst all who 
wish to contend earnestly for the faith that was 
preached by the apostles, and the many martyrs 



viii 



Address. 



who laid down their lives for the faith that was in 
them. 

I hope my having reprinted this valuable work, 
for the benefit of its readers, and the enlightenment' 
of the enemies of the one holy, catholic, and apos- 
tolic church. If this work may come to the hands 
of the prelates and clergy, they will recommend it 
to the perusal of their subjects : as the learned au- 
thor ot the Letters of Hierophilos said, that \\ the 
Catholic prelates and clergy were burning with 
charity and holy zeal for the education of the poor 
of Ireland ; not to keep education from them, but, 
as good shepherds, to watch the fold where their 
lambs and sheep are, from the wolves, in sheep's 
clothing, going about by bribes and other means, 
seeking to plunder the poor Catholic of his iaith, 
which is dearer to him than life/' 

I remain 

With humility and respect, 

Your Lordships' 

Humble Servant, 

SYLVESTER TYBRELL. 



P RE FACE. 



If the doctrine and morals of the first Christians had I 
as they were continually represented by their adversaries then m 
power, no monster had ever been so frightful as the Christian re- 
ligion. And if the faith and morals of Catholics had really those 
deformities, under which they are but too often painted even from 
the pulpit, and in those very books which are put into the hands 
of the people, as necessary preservatives against Popery, I freely 
own it were better to be of no religion at all, than to be a Papist. 

What then was commonly said and thought of the first and best 
Christians that ever were in the world ? The most distinguishing, 
part of their character was, that they utterly denied the Godhead, 
as is witnessed by St. Justin, Apoh I. p. 56. Some accused them 
of giving divine worship to the cross, as we find it recorded in 
Minutius Felix and Tertullian. Others said they gave it to the 
Sun, to an ass's head, and other things not fit to be named. 

Next, they were charged with not having men of sense or learn- 
ing amongst them, That they kept the common people in awe 
with superstitious fe;irs. That their pretended miracles were only 
tricks of art, or magical enchantments. That they were traitors to 
the government, and guilty of all the evils that happened to 
the, state. That in their most secret meetings they feasted on the 
flesh of murdered infants, made delicious sippers in their warm and 
innocent blood, and closed at length the barbarous solemnity wilh 
all sorts of lewd and incestuous embraces. In a word, that they 
were professed enemies to honour and conscience, to God and man. 
Ail these things are attested by Origen, Tertullian, St. Justin, &c. 
and shew how true this saying of Tertullian is, viz, That truth 
and the hatred of it, began together. 



X 



Preface. 



This brief and faithful account of the general hatred of the 
Christian religion* in its very infancy, may serve for a key to many 
useful discoveries. As, 1 st, that a formed design of misrepresen- 
tation and slander is a sure mark that the cause, in favour of which 
they are employed, is a very bad one. 2dly, that those, whose 
faith and morals lie under the injustice of public censure, may com- 
fort themselves with t»ds reflection, that nothing was ever more 
contemptible than religion, when in its greatest purity. 3dly, that 
what our blessed Redeemer said to his followers, Luke xxi. 17* 
Y< u shall be hated by all men for my sake," was not confined to 
the primitive times. For truth always was, and always will be, 
odious to insincere and wordly spirits ; and the present age is so 
over-stocked with these unhappy dispositions, that if they had been 
as frequent in the primitive times, few nations, perhaps, would 
ever have embraced the Christian faith. 4thly, that the same 
methods are still pursued against the truths of the gospel, as were 
at first employed against the gospel itself. My meaning is, that 
the character of Catholics is as unfairly represented now, as that of 
the Christians was in the primitive ages. 

I might appeal for the truth of this to an infinite number of Pro- 
testant books and sermons, filled with such filse characters, both 
of our faith and morals, as cannot but create the strongest preju- 
dices against us. But I have luckily met with a two-penny libel, 
which has saved me the trouble of transcribing volumes. It is 
entitled, a Protestant's resolution, sliewinxj his reasons why he will 
not be a Papist, fye. This piece not only contains a summary of 
the most usual objections against, or rather misrepresentations of, 
our doctrine ; but all the old scandalous calumnies, that malice has 
ever invented against us, are epitomized in it. So that as it gives 
us the very marrow and quintessence of many volumes of misre- 
presentation and slander. I flatter myself that the following sheets, 
though they only attack this malicious libel by name, will be a suf- 
ficient answer to books of a much larger size. 

Now, though the fourth editit n of the piece I speak of appeared 
s 'veral years ago, I became not acquainted with it. otherwise than 
by the bad character that was given me of it, 'till about the middle 



Preface. xi 

of August, Anno. 1719- But unless I had trusted to my own eyes 
rather than common fame, I should have thought it impossible, that 
a person, who not only professes himself a Christian, but sets up 
for a guide and teacher of Christians, should be capable of writing 
such an unchristian piece. 

Whoever is the author of it (for I know nothing of him but his 
exhorbitant hatred to Papists) I shall make bold to call him the 
Catechist as often as I have occasion to name him : because he has 
delivered his reasons against the twenty-four pretended errors of 
Popery in the method of a catechism : that is, by way of short 
questions and answers : which was doubtless done, to fit them for 
the weak capacity not only of boys and girls, in order to imbue 
them with an early hatred towards us, but of the populace in gene- 
ral, who greedily swallow down any thing against Papists, though 
ft be ever so absurd, or improbable in itself. 

But dare I then presume to blame him for writing against us ?— 
By no means. But I hope it is no presumption to expect a Protest- 
ant, though he writes against Papists, should guide his pen by the 
common rules of charity and Justice. I likewise hope it is no pre- 
sumption to expect that a writer, though he be a Protestant, should 
remember that he is also a Christian ; this, I think, is but reason- 
able. And therefore if the Catechist had done no more than fairly 
to propose his reasons against the pretended errors of Popery, or 
if he had only laboured to instruct or settle Protestant s in their re- 
ligion by sober reasoning, all this had been fair and honourable 

Those of his own communion would have applauded nis zeal, and 
others of a different persuasion would have valued him as an up- 
right well-meaning man, who sought not to ruin the persons of his 
adversaries, but only to convince their judgments For no man 
can be justly blamed for standing up in defence of a cause, which, 
upon rational motives, he judges to have truth and justice on its 
side. But as the Catechist has managed the cause of religion, he 
is neither justifiable before God nor man : nor do I wrong him in 
the least in saying, that he appears rather as the captain of a furious 
mob, breathing nothing but massacre and plunder, than a sober ad- 
vocate for the Christian faith. 



xii Preface. 

I shall therefore wave the ordinary complaints on account of 
unfair dealings of a less mischievous nature, such as are the misre- 
presentation of our doctrine to make it appear absurd.and ridicu- 
lous. For we are so accustomed to this sort of treatment, that we 
expect nothing else from any man that draws his pen against u« ; 
and we are the less effected wi.h it, because the usual "consequences 
of it seldom go beyond contempt, which is but a small evil compa- 
ratively to that of hatred, and was therefore too little to satisfy the 
fiery zeal of our Catechist. For he was not content to employ his 
best endeavours, as many other Protestants have done before him, 
to make us appear ridiculous in our faith, but he labours to render 
us the most hateful creatures upon earth, by painting our morals 
and practice in the very blackest colours. 

What! was he conscious to himself that his reasons against the 
twenty^four pretended errors of Popery, would be of no force to 
hinder Protestants from turning Papists, unless reviling, forgery, 
and slander, were called in to his assistance ? I am sure it can be 
no rash judgment to think so, or something full as bad, if we but 
observe that his Catechism is fully ended, p. 27* And he tells us 
in the title page, that the reasons it contains are digested into so 
plain a method of questions and answers, that any ordinary capa- 
city may be able to defend the Protestant religion against the most 
cunning Jesuit or Popish priest. And why then did he did not lay 
down his pen when he had done our business so effectually for us, 
that there was no further danger of any one's being seduced even by 
the most cunning Jesuit, or Popish Priest? What necessity was 
there, after that, of adding twenty pages more, by way of an ap- 
pendix, chiefly to defame and traduce our persons ? Certaiuly, 
either it was because he had a real mistrust of the solidity of his 
reasons against our doctrine, and thought they would do but little 
execution without the help of slander, which does no great honour 
to the Protestant cause : or what is worse for himself, he was moved 
to it out of pure malice to do us mischief merely for mischief-sake : 
since, if he expressed his thoughts sincerely in his title page, his. 
end was fully answered without it. 

In effect, the twenty additional pages in his Catechism contain 



Preface. 



xiii 



principally, a most virulent invective, filled with as much gall, and 
studied malice, as can be crouded into so small a oompass. And, 
I must needs say, the character he there gives of us is so very 
black, that were we really the hideous monsters, he has described 
us, we should undoubtedly deserve the utmost hatied and execra- 
tion of all mankind. So that considering with what industry his 
Catechism has been spread among the common people, as I have 
lately been informed, I can attribute it to nothing else but a spe- 
cial providence on the one hand, and the more moderate temper of 
the generality of English Protestants on the other, that we are not 
torn in pieces by the mob, or have not stones thrown at us as we 
walk the streets* I know not whether this was the Cfiristian de- 
sign of our charitable Catechist } God only knows the heart, and I 
will not presume to judge of it* However, to shew that I am not 
conscious of having overstrained the matter, I shall set down a 
part of his own words, and then the reader may judge of him as 
he pleases* 

1. He tells us, that Protestants being adversaries to the church 
of Rome, her Popish sons owe them nothing ^but ruin and de- 
struction, and the vilest means they can use for that end are me- 
ritorious and glorious, pages 27, 28l 

2. That they make perjury in this kind not only blameless, but 
necessary $ and that breach of oaths* is no less with them than a 
virtue or a necessary duty in many cases, pi 28. 

3. That by the sacred dec rees .'of their councils they must be 
forsworn, if they will not be excommunicated. And that one, who 
has taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, sins mortally; 
not if he takes these oaths (for their priests may dispense with) but 
if he keeps them* Whence he concludes, that no Papist can pos- 
sibly give any security which may be trusted, that Protestants shall 
enjoy anything, which is in their power to deprive them of, pages. 
28, and 20. 

4. That their religion has laid such strong bonds upon tbem to 
break all bonds that may favour Protestants that it leaves nojiopes 
of salvation to them, who will not at their death take the greatest 



xiv Preface. 

nntrath upon their salvation if the Catholic cause may be helped 
by it, />. 2». 

5. That the very principles of their religion bind them to ob- 
serve no faith, or trust or common honesty with those, whom they 
account heretics, p. 30. 

6. That they amongst Papists, who are executed for real trea- 
sons and murders, deny it at their deaths (being over- awed by their 
priests*) Ibid. 

7. That hundreds of Irish Papists are executed In the kingdom 
0 f Ireland every year for murders, thefts, &o. yet, when they come 
to die, take it upon their salvation, that they are as innocent of 
the fact they die for as tho child unborn, p. 31. 

8. Thai for shedding of blood the Papal Rome exceeds heathen 
Rome, p. 34. 

Far proof of this last calumny the Cateclasi relates some facts 
of which I shall take notice in my Appendix. Only the last of them 
being a valuable piece shall be here set down at its full length in 
his own wordsv 

a Add to this (says he) their bloody traitorous design against 
king Charles II, the government, and the Protestant religion. A 
conspiracy, which, had it taken effect, might have turned England 
into an aceldama, a field of blood, or shambles of Popish butchers 
These things considered, I hope no man will be so mad as to kiss 
t ie Pope's toe until his nails be pared ; so as he will not scratch 
and make tl*e blood run about the mouth of Christendom, p. 35.** 

I cannot here forbear remarking, how good an inclination the 
poor gentleman has to be witty, even at the expense of his neigh- 
bour's reputatian. Yet methinks so merry a jest was brought in 
somewhat unseasonably in so tragical a relation. But let that be 
as it will, the dismal story lie here tells us must either be the Rye- 
house plot (the history whereof is fully related by the late bishop 
of Rochester,) or the design of seizing the king's person at OxJforjI* 
which was prevented by the unexpected dissolution of the par- 



Preface. 



xv 



liament : or, lastly, that which is commonly known by the name of 
Oates's plot. For I never read of any other in the reign of king 
Charles- II, If ho means eitlier of the two former lie has reason to 
say, that had it taken effect it might have turned England into an 
aceldama, a field of blood or shambles, not of Popish but Pro- 
testant butchers (if I may be allowed to repeat after him that un- 
mannerly expression ;) for, praise be to God, there was not a single 
Papist concerned in either of these two conspiracies ? 

But if he means Oates's plot (as I presume he does, foi I find 
he was somewhat ashamed to speak out) the perjury and villainy 
of that wicked contriver of it, is so well known, and has been so 
fully proved by Protestant as well as Catholic writers, and even ac- 
knowledged by the supreme tribunal of the nation, that I need not 
give myself the trouble to vindicate the honour of those innocent 
persons, that fell a sacrifice to it, I wish the Catechist could as 
easily purge himself from the guilt of a most malicious slander, in 
reviving the charge of that sham plot against us. And I presume 
lie chiefly points at those innocent victims of popular fury, and 
others that have been under the like circumstances, when he tells 
us we make no scruple to die with perjury in our mouths. Which 
calumny he repeats, page 33, where he writes thus ; 

•* No sort of heretics (not excepting Turk, Jew, nor Pagan: 
no not those of Calicut who adore the devil) did ever maintain, by 
the grounds of religion* that it is lawful, or rather meritorious, ( ; »s 
Papist call it) to murder princes or people for the quarrel of re- 
ligion, Aod although particular men of all professions have heen 
some thieves, some murderers, some traitors, yet ever when they 
came to their end, and just punishment, they confessed'their fault 
to be in their nature, and not in their profession. But these per-* 
sons cleave to it at their deaths as zealously, as if all they had 
been doing w ere by the immediate guidance of the blessed spirit* 
Such is their blasphemy 1" Pages 38, 39. 

This may be called blasphemy indeed. But it is a most wicked 
calumny to charge us with the guilt of it : and nothing but the 
father of lies could instigate the Catechist to defame us in so un- 
christian a manner* However he has not yet done with us, but 



Preface. xvj 

he tells his reader, page 42, " that it is observable, that the most 
ignorant or careless, or tin) .most wicked and debauched, make uP 
*he greatest part of our p'roseiy tes. : - •'"Nor is ft strange, since 'false 
principles an 1 bad lives mutually beget each other." it he had 
said that many of those, 'who led' wicked and debauched lives before 
they turned Papists, have been entirely seformed af'er their com- 
ing over to o«, he would have spoken the naked truth ; for ther e 
are innumerable examples of it: whereas 1 challenge Mm to 
name me out one single person in the kingdom of Great Britain* 
who upon turning Protestant, after he had been brought up a 
Papist, ever mended his life ; that is, became a soberer, a juster* 
and honester man by it than he was before. Nay, I may salely 
say, the very reverse of it is generally remarked; and it is a 
strong proof, ihat they change for interest and libertinism, and 
nut for conscience sake. 

Lastly he tells us, •« That the %\ho 1 e Romish hierarchy is so far 
from being suited witbin the order of the gospel, that the main de- 
sign of their popes, cardinals, jesuits, friars, &c. is but to advance 
themselves above all that is good, and to gratify their hase 
lusts," pi 44, Was there any thing so foul and scurrilous ! How- 
ever I am verily persuaded that if the Catechist were but for one 
month in any religious order, or would but keep one lent among 
them, he would soon change his mind, and be convinced by ex- 
perience, that the confinement of a narrow cell, a hard bed to lie 
on, spare diet, watching, praying, fasting, and many other mor- 
tifications both of the will and body, are not in the least prope r 
methods to gratify the lusts of the flesh. 

But let any one judge, whether this worthy gentleman who pre- 
tends to so much zeal for religion, and talks of nothing but the 
blessed spirit, holiness, and tender conscience in his three last 
pages, could aim at any thing less, than, by the dint of downright 
6 lander, to expose us to the hatred' and fury of a merciless popu- 
lace On the first occasion that shall present itself? We are here re- 
presented by him as a knot of the most profligate villi ains upon 
earth : nay, worse than Turks, Jews, Pagans, or those who adore 
the devil. We are described as men taught by the principles of 



Preface. xvii 

their religion to observe neither truth, faith, nor common honesty 
with Protectants, As men thirsting after blood, making a practice 
of dieing with lies in their mouths, dispensing with unlawful oaths, 
looking upon perjiny and breach of oaths as virtues, and necessary 
duties in many cases ; and finalij seeking nothing so much as the 
destruction of Protestants, by all the foulest means the devil can 
suggest, 

Good God! What a character is this ! Nay a character of Chrir- 
tians drawn by the pen of a Christian ! Is not this cloatbing us, ss 
Heathens did the primitive Christians, in bear skins, to set dogs 
at us to tear us in pieces ! For my part, I praise God I have been 
a Papist these many years. I have also gone through all my studies 
under Popish masters, and have, chiefly, lived and conversed 
amongst Papists the rest of my life : so that it is morally impossi- 
ble I should be ignorant either of their principles or practice. Yet 
I declare solemnly, and I declare it without any equivocation or 
mental reservation, to which I am a hearty enemy, that I have 
never in my whole life, heard any of the above-mentioned execra- 
ble maxims, which the Catechist lays so boldly to our charge 
taught by any of those, under whom I have had my education — . 
On the contrary, I have always been taught the following Christian 
rules, 

1 . That we are bound to do by others, as we would be done by. 

2. That it is unlawful to do evil, that good may come of it. 

3. That perjury in all cases whatsoever is a most damnable sin. 

4. Ti>at the taking of unlawful oaths cannot be dispensed with 
by any power upon earth. 

5. That no power upon earth can discharge us of any duty, to 
which we are bound by the law of God or nature. 

6. That faith, justice, truth, and honesty, are duties, which by 
the law of God and nature, we owe to all mankind. And, 

7. That we are bound to pay allegiance to our lawful sovereigns, 
et their religion be what it will. 



I 



Preface. 



These are the moral principles I have always been taught : and 
I think I am not ignorant of the principles of my own religion. But, 
alas ! I forget, I am a Papist 1 and so the Catechist will tell me ! 
I may lie and swear by dispensation ; which I own is a clever way 
to stop my mouth. However I make bold to assure him, that if he 
were as free from slander, as I am from the sin of perjury and 
lieing, lie would have an easier account to make before the great 
tribunal, than he will most certainly experience, unless he re- 
tracts the falsehoods he has published against us. For slander is 
a most grievous sin against justice, as well as charity ; and will 
certainly damn those, who die with the guilt of it unrepented. 

But let us reason a little calmly upon the matter. Perhaps the 
Catechist has never been conversant with any Roman Catholics 
either at home or abroad. Let him then first inquire of numberless 
English Protestants, who in the late wars have served either in 
Spain or Flanders, where it was their lot to be made prisoner* of 
war? Let him, I say^ enquire of them what sort of treatment they 
found amongst the French or Spanish Papists ? And whether their 
sick and wounded were not carefully looked after, as if they had 
been in their own hospitals ? Nay, whether the religious houses, 
both of men and women, had not the same bowels of compassion 
for them, and were not as forward to relieve their wants, as if 
they had been their Catholic brethren ? It is notoriously known they 
were, and there are many Protestants yet alive ready to attest it. 
And does this look like thirsting after the blood: of Protestants, or 
seeking their destruction by all means possible ? Yet no man can 
doubt but these Papists acted according to the principles of their 
religion. Nor do Turks treat Christians in this manner, though 
the Catechist will needs have us to be wors# than Turks. 

Let him next take a view of Holland, where there is a mixed 
society of Protestants and Catholics : which latter are very nume- 
rous in all the great towns of trade. Here he will find great num- 
bers of Roman Catholics, as well officers, as common soldiers, em- 
ployed in Protestant armies, and serving their Protestant masters 
with as much fidelity and zeal as the best Protestants in Europe. 
Nay, the prince of Orange had so great an opinion of his Dutch 



Preface. xix 

Catholic troops, and reposed so great a trust in their loyalty, that 
he brought several thousands over with him into England, to fight 
against a Popish prince then on the^ throne ; and unless the Dutch 
Popish troops had been more faithfnl to their Protestant prince, 
than the English Protestant troops were to their Popish king, the 
revolution had never happened. 

Whence I infer, that the Catechist has wronged us most in- 
humanly in asserting, that Protestants being adversaries of the 
Church of Rome, her sons owe them nothing but ruin and de- 
struction. That the vilest means they can use for that end are me- 
ritorious and glorious.. That perjury is. no less with us than a vir- 
tue, or necessary duty : and that our priests can dispense with any 
oaths. For the Dutch Catholic troops, I have spoken of, knew 
nothing of any such dispensing power, even when they came to 
£ght for Protestants against a Popish prince. On the contrary, 
they knew the principles of their religion obliged them to be faith- 
ful to their lawful masters, though of a different religion ; and 
therefore acted accordingly. But did. the English Protestant troops 
follow their example? Alas! how partial are men in seeing 
motes in their neighbours* eyes, yet cannot see beams in their 
own.. 

But since the Catechist does likewise assert, that the principles 
of our religion bind us to observe no truth, or frith, or common 
honesty, with Protestrnts, which certainly is the foulest character 
that can be given of any society of men, I shall once more send 
him abroad for. his better- information ; I mean, to the countries o^ 
Germany, Switzerland, and Holland, where Catholics and Pro- 
testants live united together in the common bonds of commerce 
and; civil society. For it was never said, but that the Protestants? 
in those- countries, find the same faith, truth, and honesty from the 
Roman Catholics they deal with, as from those of their own com- 
munion. Which would be morally impossible, if the very princi- 
ples of their religion, taught them the contrary. Nay, the kingdom 
of Great Britain is actually engaged in a strict alliance with several 
Popish princes. And will ihe Catechist have the boldness to cell 
the ministry, that they are confederated with a pack of perfidious 
rascals, who are bonnd by the principles of their religion to ob~ 



xx Preface, 

serve neither faith, truth, nor common honesty with Protestants ? 
If he does, I know not what reward he may come to meet with. 

But perhaps the English Catholics alone are the monsters the 
Catechist has described. Yet I am very sure their principles ar e 
the same with those of foreign Papists. And I dare appeal to the 
judgment of any sober Protestant in England, who is but 
thoroughly acquainted with their persons and practice, whether 
they deserve the infamous character of men d estitute of faith 
truth, and common honestyV 

We have some of most states and professions amongst us ; and 
these are as well known by Protestants,*" as by those of their own 
communion. The Catholic gentlemen, who live a; their seats, in 
the country, are generally as remarkable for sobriety and virtue, 
for justice in paying their debts, for hospitality to their neighbours 
and charity to all without distinction of Protestant or Papist, as 
any of their Protestant neighbours ; nay. I know a Catholic family 
in the country, which alone relieves more Protestant poor, than 
most of the Protestant families in the neighbourhood joinned to- 
gether. And is this acting like persons, who, by their principles, 
are bound to observe neither faith, truth, nor common honesty 
with Protestants ? 

Tho e amongst us, who live by their profession, such as lawyers, 
doctors, chirurgeons, tradesmen, and shopkeepers, have generally as 
good a character, and are reputed, by Protestants themselves, as ho- 
nest, conscientious, and upright in their dialings, as any whatsoever. 
Which surely is not acting like men destitute of faith, truth, and 
common honesty. Besides there are several Protestant servants in 
Catholic families, and several Catholic servants even in posts of 
the greatest trust in Protestant families. Also Catholics and Pro- 
testants frequently marry together. Let then the Catechist inquire 
how Protestant servants are treated by their Catholic masters, and 
how Catholic servants behave themselves in Protestant families. 
Let him also inquire wheth er Catholic women make not as discreet, 
as virtuous, and faithful wives to their Protestant husbands, or 
whether Catholic husbands treat not their Protestant wives with as 



Preface. xxi 

much honour, tenderness, and good manners, as Protestants them- 
selves. For if he cannot inform himself of any remarkable irregu- 
larities in the conduct of Catholic servants, or masters, wives, or 
husbands, towards their respective Protestant masters, or servants, 
husbands, or wives, then I hope he will have some remorse of the 
scandalous calumny he has published of us, viz. That the very 
principles of our religion bind us to observe no faith, or truth, or 
common honesty with Protestants. 

I know that they, who are personally acquainted with some Ro- 
man Catholics and have a real value for them, yet continue under 
the ge«eral prejudices they have sucked in almost with their milk, 
are wont to answer, that if all Papists were like such and such a 
one, whom they know to be a very honest man,, they should have 
nothing to say against them. It seems then that such Papists as 
are person illy known hy Protestants are very honest men. But 
those, whom they know nothing < f , are all knaves, and void of 
common honesty. Perhaps this is the true reason why we are so 
black in the Catechist's eyes, and there may be room to pray to God 
to forgive him, because he knows not what he says., 

I shall here resume, for a moment, the subject of perjury j a sin 
hateful both to God and man. Yet the Catechist, charges us posi- 
tively with it, as a thing of which we are so far from making any 
scruple, that we may think it wholly blameless, nay, necessary in. 
many cases. But it will be hard to determine, whether this accu- 
sation l>e more repugnant to truth or common sense, unless we are 
all ^supposed to be madmen. For it is notoriously known, that 
(excepting a few Protestant non jurors) we are the only persons in 
Great Britain, that have suffered by refusing oaths ; and have suf- 
fered grievously by it rather than incur the guilt of being perjured.. 
Yet forsooth, our priests can dispense with perjury, tf the Cate- 
chist is to be bellSVed. Can any thing in nature be more absurd ? 

No man can be so great a stranger to the English constitution as 
not to know, that taking certain oaths qualifies a man in the eye 
of the law for any preferment, military or civil : as the army, the 
navy, the bench, the bar, the court, the parliament: in a word, 
for any place of honour, proSt, or trust j so that if we had but con- 



xxii 



Preface. 



sciences large enough to swallow a few oaths, we might not only 
deliver ourselves in a trice from the innumerable vexations we are 
under, but enjoy all the advantages of free-born subjects, and be 
upon an equal footing with the best Protestants in the nation. — 
And why then do we refuse to do it, if our church can dispense with 
perjury ? It is such an unintelligible riddle, that neither reason nor 
religion can account for it. Yet we are told by the Catechist, that 
our priests cannot only dispense with unlawful oaths, but that the 
very principles of our religion, leave no hope of salvation to them, 
who will not even at their deaths take the greatest untruth upon 
their salvation, if the Catholic cause may be helped by it, page 29. 
And would not the Catholic cause be helped (as he calls it) by our 
qualifying ourselves for places of profit and trust, which nothing 
but our abhorrence of perjury hinders us from doing ? It is there- 
fore a ridiculous calumny to say we have a dispensation "for lieing 
and swearing, when the very dread of incurring the guilt of it, is 
the principal occasion of our temporal ruin. 

Well, if the Catechist be as little able to prove the errors in faith, 
as the immoralities he has laid to our charge, I dare boldly say, he 
has undertaken a defenceless cause. But ^h^ will be examined in 
the following sheets : where, I assure the reader, he will find 
neither scurrility nor slander, but a plain and modest vindication of 
the Catholic doctrine, from the twenty-four pretended errors, the 
Catechist has mustered up against us, That is, a plain exposition 
of the Catholic faith, stripped of the false glosses and colourings 
wherewith it is usuuUy so disguised by our adversaries, that it ap- 
pears many times) wholly different from what really it is in itself. 
And this I take to be its best vindication : because truth needs no 
more than to be fairly shewed, and is his own best defence,, when set 
in a true light. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 



ART. I. Of Infallibility, . . 1 

Art. II. Of the Popes supremacy, . 6 

Art. III. Of Obedience to the Pope and A legiance to sove- 
reigns, . . . . . 10 
Art. IV. Whether the Pope be Antichrist, . . U 
Art. V. Sect. 1. Whether Protestants be guilty of heresy, 14 
Secu 2. The English reformation was made without the free 

consent of the clergy, . .18 

Art. VI. Sect. 1. Whether the church of Rome be the only true 

church, . . . . . 24 

Sect. 2. The Marks of the true church, . . 26 

Sect. 3. Of Catholicity, . . 29 

Art. VII. Of the invocation of saints, • • 32 

Objections answered, . . . .34 

Art. VIII. Of Transubstantiation, . . 37 

Sect. 2. Transubstantiation proved from scripture, . 39 
Sect. 3. Objections answered, . . • 42 

Art. IX. Of the sacrifice of the Mass, . .44 

Objections answered, . . . .46 

Art. X. Of communion in one kind, . . 47 

Sect. 1. Communion in one kind does not defraud the laity of 

the sacred blood of Christ, . . .48 

Sect. 2. Communion in one kind is not contrary to the institu- 
tion of Christ nor a violation of any divine precept, . 50 
Sect. 3. Objections from scriptuie answered, • 52 

Art. XI. Of Venial sin, . . .55 

Art XII. Of Purgatory, . . . 56 

Objections answered, . . . .59 

Art. XIII. Of believing the scriptures upon the sole authority 

of the church, . . . .60 

Art. XIV. Of apostolical traditions, . • 61 

Art. XV. Of Images, .... 65 
Sect. 2. Of Relics, .... 68 
Sect. 3. Of blessing ourselves with the sign of the cross, 70 
Sect. 4. Of the Use of holy water and other blessings, . ib. 
Sect. 5. Of beads, spittle, nunneries, fish days, disciplines, and 

pilgrimages, . . . .72 

Art. XVI. Of the number of sacraments, . . 74 

Art. XVII. Of reading the bible in the vulgar tongue, . 75 
Art. XVIII. Of prayers in an unknown tongue, . 83 

Art. XIX. Of Indulgences, . . , 86 



xxiv 



Contents. 



Pcvje. 

Art. XX. Of Merits, 88 
Art. XXI. Of works of supererogation, . • 92 

Art. XXII. Of Justification, . . . » b - 

Art. XXIII. Of Assurance, ... 94 

Art. XXIV. Of Celibacy or the single life of priests, . 95 
The Catechist's objections answered, . • 93 

Tue Catechist's concluding questions and answers briefly re- 
marked upon. . . . .102 



CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX: 



SECT. 1. Popery is not a traitorous religion, . 106 

Sect. 2. Of tJ>e loyalty of the English Roman Catholics du- 
ring the civil wars, . . . .108 
Sect. 3. King Charles II preserved by Roman Catholics after 

the defeat of his army at Worcester, . • 1 1 0 

Sect. 4. Tne facts produced by the Catechist to prove Popery 

a traitorous religion are wholly impertinent, . 1 1 6 

Sect. 5. Of the gunpowder plot, . . • 119 

Sect. 6. Of the deposing power, . .122 
Sect. 7. Popery is not a bloody religion, . . 125 

Sect. &. Of the French and Irish massacre, . . 126 

The conclusion. . . . .131 



CONTENTS 

OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES PROVED DESTI- 
TUTE OF A LAWFUL MINISTRY : 

ART. I. No lawful ministry without a lawful mission, . 142 
Art. II. The disagreement amongst Protestants concerning 

their mission, . . . .148 

Art. III. The Jirst reformers had no extraordinary mission, 1-4 
Art- IV. No extraordinary vocation without the gift of mir- 
acles, . . . . .164 
Art. 5. The first reformers had no ordinary mission, . 170 
Art. VI. Protestants convicted from their own writings that 

they have no lawful mission from the church of Rome, 174 
The Supplement of Art. III. p. 156. . .180 



A 

plain And rational 
ACCOUNT 

OF THE 

CATHOLIC FAITH. 



ARTICLE I. 

OF INFALLIBILITY. 

The first pretended error of the Papists is, in asserting the 
infallibility of the Pope and Church ; and that every man 
must submit his faith and conscience to them. Cat. p. 6. 

ANSWER. 

The Catechist oudit here to have distinguished between faith 
and opinion. For the Pope's infallibility is no article of faith, nor 
proposed by the church as a condition of communion. She teaches 
indeed, that the church established upon earth by Christ is infallible 
in all her decisions relating to matters of faith. But this is no er- 
ror. On the contrary, it is a fundamental truth, grounded on the 
most express and positive promises of Christ. " 1. That the gates 
of hell (the power of darkness and error) shall not prevail against 
his church," Matt. xvi. 18. which undoubtedly they would, if she 
were corrupted in her faith. " 2. That the spirit of truth shall lead 
her pastors into all truth, John xvi. 13. and that " for ever," John 
xiv. 16. Matt, xxviii. 20. which therefore cannot be understood of 
the Apostles only, because they were not to remain here for ever. 

It is upon these clear promises we believe the church of Christ to 
be infallible in her faith. And it follows from it, that in all con- 
troversies of religion, when the church has once pronounced sen- 

1 



2 



OF INFALLIBILITY. 



tence, all safely may and ought to submit to her judgment. For 
surely he must have very little sense, who is afraid of being misled, 
when he follows the directions of an infallible guide. 

To render this submission still more rational, the Holy Ghost 
has taken care to establish the church's authority in the plainest 
and strongest terms. First, our blessed Redeemer has already 
pronounced sentence on those who will not hear his church : but 
" if he will not hear the church, says he, let him be to thee as a 
heathen and a publican," Matt, xviii. 17- which if true in private 
disputes, is more evidently so in public controversies of a higher 
concern. In another place he thus settles the authority of scriptural 
guides. " He that hears you, hears me : and he that dispises you, 
dispises me," Luke x. 16. 

Secondly, St. Paul positively affirms, " that the church of Christ 
is " the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. iii. 15. which cannot be 
true if she be capable of seducing her children by false doc- 
trines. Upon this principle in his epistle to the Hebrews he in- 
structs them in the important lesson of submission to their spiritual 
guides : " obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your- 
selves, Heb. xiii. 17. And speaking of the same guides, "whose 
faith follow," says he, Heb. v. 7. 

Again, writing to the Ephesians, he lets them know, " that 
God has not only placed in his church apostles, prophets, and evan- 
gelists, but also pastors and teachers, Eph. iv. 11. For what end? 
v. 12. " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis- 
try, for the edifying of the mystical body of Christ." How long ? v. 

1 3. " Till we all come to the unity of faith." For what end ? v. 

14. " That henceforth we be no more like children tossed to and 
fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the slight of 
cunning men lying in wait to deceive us." This is evidently spoken 
in reference to the people who are here taught, first, that the pas- 
tors of the church are appointed by God himself to be their guides 
in faith ; secondly, that these guides shall continue in the church 
of Christ without ceasing to the end of the world, " till we all come 
to the unity of faith. Thirdly, that in all controversies of religion, 
it belongs to these guides to fix the wavering judgment of the people, 
against all the wicked arts of impostors and seducers, and that, by 
consequence, the faithful ought to rely on their directions with an 
entire confidence. 

For unless they may be safely depended on, they would not fully 
answer the end of their institution ; the people, especially the ig- 
norant, upon every new and difficult debate, would be left in un- 
certainty, and might even suspect their guides to be their seducers: 
as the Jews, when deprived of such privileged teachers, were led 
into the grossest errors by the scribes and pharisees. But blessed 
for ever be the mercy of God, who has now established his covenant 
upon better promises, Heb. viii. 6. who has settled upon earth a 
> tsible Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth, against 



OF INFALLIBILITY. 



3 



which the gates of hell shall never prevail; and to which he has 
promised the Spirit of truth for ever. So that I leave any one to 
judge whether they who refuse to submit their private reason to the 
authority of this church, be not in danger of being self- convicted at 
the iireat tribunal of God ? 

Hence I infer, first, that whoever is a member of any church, 
that own herself to be fallible, and subject to errors in faith, is not a 
member of the church to which Christ has promised his Spirit for 
ever. 

I infer, secondly, that he is not a member of the true church ; 
because only that church which Christ established, and to which he 
made that promise, is the true one. And I leave it to him to con- 
sider, whether any man can hope to attain salvation, who lives wil- 
fully out of the communion of that church, which Christ came to es- 
tablish for the salvation of mankind and of whicn it is said, Acts 
47- " the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be 
saved/' 

I infer, thirdly, that the church of Christ can never be under any 
necessity of having her faith reformed. For if she can never fall into 
any errors destructive to the faith revealed by God, what need can 
there be of any such reformation ? 

I infer, lastly, that if all men had but faith enough to believe the 
church established by Christ himself to be our guide, and humility 
enough to submit their judgment to her's, there had never been any 
heresy in the Christian world. Which, as it shews on the one hand 
the excellency of Christ's institution, so, on the other, it is a dread- 
ful instance of the pride and misery of mankind, who had rather lose 
Heaven by presumption, than gain it by following better lights than 
their own, 

If you say, 1st, that the promises of Christ are all conditional, be- 
cause the condition of obedience is always implied. 

I answer, that if this objection had any force, it would prove a 
$>reat deal more than Protestants design. For if the promises of 
Christ, which were addressed immediately to his apostles, be only 
conditional, it follows that the apostles had not an absolute promise 
of being always assisted by the Holy Ghost ; which, in effect, would 
undermine all they either taught or writ, that is, the whole New 
Testament. 

If you tell me, that the apostles had particular privileges, as of 
writing scripture, of receiving the Holy Ghost visibly, &c. So that 
this promise might be absolute to them, and only conditional to the 
church in after- times. 

I answer, that this too will undermine the gospel: for, 1st, if the 
promises made to the church be not absolute, the gates of hell may 
prevail against her. 2dly, when she first received the books of the 
New Testament, for example, the epistle to the Hebrews and the 
revelation, as written by the apostles, and as parts of the holy 
.scripture, she was either absolutely infallible, or not: if she was., 



4 



OP INFALLIBILITY 1 . 



an absolute promise of infallibility was not confined to the apostles 
and evangelists. But if she was not absolutely infallible, she 
might be mistaken in her faith concerning the authority of these 
writings: which is still to undermine the scripture. 

If you say, 2dly, that the scripture is plain in all things, which 
is necessary for Christians to believe : and that, consequently, there 
is no need of an infallible guide. 

I answer, that the scripture is a sure rule of faith only to those, 
who, for the right understanding of it, use their best endeavours, 
and the means which are of God's appointment, that they be not 
carried about with every wind of doctrine. Now one of these 
means, and indeed the principal one is, to consult the church es» 
tablished by Christ to be our guide, and to submit in all things to 
her decisions. 

If you say, 3dly, that as fair promises of infallibility were made 
to the synagogue, Deut. xvii. 8, 12, &c. Yet it is certain she 
erred most grieviously. 

To this I answer with St. Paul, Heb. viii. 6. that Christ " Is 
the mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better 
promises." nay, it is very certain^ the synagogue was never stiled 
" the pillar and ground of truth:" nor had she a divine assurance, 
that " the gates of hell should never prevail against her." On the 
contrary, her fall in rejecting the Messias was possitively foretold 
by the prophets: as, that he should be a " stone of stumbling, and 
a rock of offence to both the houses of Irael> &c. Is. viii. 14. So 
that if the synagogue had ever any promise of infallibility, it was 
not to be perpetual. But of the church, Isais thus prophecies : " the 
Redeemer shall come to Sion, &c. My spirit that is upon thee, and 
my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of 
thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, says the Lord, 
from henceforth, and for ever," Is. lix. 20. 21. " They shall fear 
thee as long as the sun and moon endure throughout all genera- 
tions. Psal. lxxii. Heb. v. 5. which is a plain and positive pre- 
diction that the church's infallibility was to be perpetual, and last 
to the end of the world. 

But let us now hear the Catechist's reasons against the church's 
infallibility. The first is, because (says he) this gives the church 
a greater authority than the apostles did ever claim : for which he 
quotes St. Paul, saying, " not for that we have dominion over 
your faith, &c. 2 Cvr. i. 24. 

But will the Catechist then venture to say, that the apostles 
were not infallible in delivering the Christian doctrine ? If he does, 
he saps the very foundation of Christianity : for it will then follow, 
that they were not infallible either in their preaching or writinsr, 
and by consequence the gospels written by them are not infallibly 
true. How then do they contain the pure word of God, which 
surely is infallible ? 

As to the words of St. Paul, telling the Corinthians, "that he 



OF INFALLIBILITY. 



5 



had no dominion over their faith the Catechist, I hope, will not 
pretend that St. Paul had no power or authority from God to 
oblige the Corinthians to believe the doctrine he had taught them ; 
or that he submitted it to their private judgment to examine, 
change, or reform it, as they pleased. And if this was not his 
meaning to what purpose does he quote his words ; all, therefore 
St. Paul disclaimed, was a tyrannical or arbitrary dominion over 
their faith, which some false brethren accused him of to lessen his 
authority. That is, he would not have them imagine, that be- 
cause he had been the chief instrument of their conversion to the 
faith, he pretended to lord it over them in an arbitrary manner, or 
tyrannise over their persons, by chastising tl^em with a severity un- 
becoming the meekness of an apostle. 

But to put the matter beyond all dispute, the same apostle writes 
thus to the Galatians : " though we, or an angel from Heaven, 
preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed," Galat. i. 8. 
Now, I ask, whether the apostle did not here claim an infallibility 
in what he had preached ? whether in these words he allowed the 
Galations to believe, that he had been under a mistake ? or whe- 
ther it be not plain that he demanded an entire submission to the 
doctrine he had taught them ? and how far then was St. Paul from 
encouraging the private judgment of any man to controul his de- 
cisions, since he would not allow it even to an angel from Heaven, 
but pronounced those accursed, that should pretend to reform the 
doctrine he had preached ? 

The second reason against the church's infallibility (says the Cat- 
echist) is, " because it is contrary to Christ's command concerning 
the trial of doctrine." I answer, as we may examine the. scriptures 
though infallible, so may we also try and examine the doctrine of th£ 
church though infallible ; that is to say, we may not only seek to 
understand it according to the best of our capacity, but search dili- 
gently into the grounds or motives of our belief of it : which fully 
answers the following command of St. Peter, quoted by the Cate- 
chist : " be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh 
you a reason of the hope that is in you," 1 Pet iii. 15. For is not 
every Catholic ready to give a very good reason for his hope or 
faiths by saying \\e follows a guide of God's own appointment ? 
that Christ promised to preserve this guide from erring, and that 
therefore he may safely depend upon him ? nay, I appeal to any 
man of common sense, whether they, who follow their own private 
judgment in opposition to church authority, can give as rational 
an account as this is of their hope ? 

His third reason against the church's infallibility, is, "because 
as to matter of fact guides and teachers had caused the people to 
sin by following them," p. 7. And for this he quotes four texts : 
but he might have spared himself the labour. For who ever doubt- 
ed, but there are, and always have been, many false guides ? but 
the question is, whether the church established by Christ to direct 



6 



THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 



us in the way of salvation be of that number ? I think not, For 
if she were, Christ would not oblige us under pain of eternal 
damnation to hear her voice. 



ARTICLE II. 

THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 

The second pretended error of the Papists is, that the Pope 
is the universal head of the church. This ( says the Cat-' 
echist ) Protestants deny ; because neither the creed nor 
the sacred scriptures have revealed any such thing x p. 7, 

ANSWER. 

It is very true, that Protestants deny it. It is likewise true, that; 
it is not mentioned in the creed : neither are the Scriptures them- 
selves, the sacraments, priests, nor bishops, mentioned in it. But 
are they therefore to be laid aside ? I hope not, however, we think 
it clearly revealed in scripture, that Christ made St. Peter the 
head of his church, and by consequence his successors : unless it be 
supposed, that the form of church government established by Christ 
was to end with St. Peter's life. But may we as truly say, that 
the power of preaching and administering the sacraments was to 
end with the apostles ? or, that the whole episcopal order was to 
end with the first bishops they ordained ? 

Now that Christ made St. Peter head of the universal church, 
we prove from St. John, xxi. 15, 16, &c. I shall shew where the 
stress of the argument lies as briefly as I can. Christ on the very 
day of his resurrection installed St. Peter and the other apostles 
in their apostolical charge, John xx. 21. 'as my father sent me, 
so I send you, &c.' and I easily grant, they all received here an 
equal apostolical charge or jurisdiction, but appearing afterwards 
to St. Peter, St. John, St. James, St. Thomas, and some of the dis- 
ciples, after he had eaten with them he addressed himself to St. 
Peter alone, with such an unusual ceremony as not to be found in 
the whole New Testament. St. Peter was singled out from the 
rest of the company. Christ asked him, " lovest thou me more 
than these ?" and after as many repeated assurances of his love, 
Christ gave him a special commission to feed his lambs and sheep : 
that is, his whole flock. 

Here I observe, first, our Saviour's demanding a greater degree 
of love of St. Peter, than of the other apostles ; which was but a 
natural introduction to his laying a greater charge upon him ; be- 
cause the higher a person is raised in the ministry of the gospel, 



THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 



7 



the greater his love ought to be for Christ, to enable him to per- 
form his trust. 

I observe, secondly, that as the peculiar ceremony and solemnity, 
wherewith this action was performed, regarded St. Peter alone, as 
distinguished from the other apostles ; so it is but congruous to 
common sense to infer from it, that it conveyed something to him 
above the rest. 

But what gives the greatest force to this argument and shews, 
plainty, that St. Peter received here a special commission in which 
the other apostles had no share, is the circumstance I have already 
hinted at, viz. that this happened at our Saviour's third apparition 
to the apostles, John xxi. 14. Now Christ had installed both St. 
Peter and the other apostles in the common exercise of their apos- 
tleship, or mission, at his very first apparition to them, John xx 
21. when he gave to them all their full power and credentials^ to 
preach the gospel every where. Either then he gave St. Peter no 
power at all, John xxi. 15, 16, &c, which is contrary to the text: 
or if he gave him any, it was not common to the rest then present. 
And what can that be but his superiority over the other apostles? 

This made St. Eucherius bishop of Lions, who lived in the be- 
ginning of the fifth age, write thus, upon the eve of St. Peter's 
feast; first, Christ entrusted him with his lambs, next with his 
sheep : because he made him not only a shepherd, but the shep- 
herd of shepherds : Peter then feeds the lambs, he also feeds the 
sheep. He feeds both the young and the mothers, he rules both 
subjects and prelates. He is therefore a shepherd over all. For 
besides lambs and sheep there is nothing in the church. 

In the third age, St. Cyprian writing to the holy pope and mar- 
tyr St. Cornelius, calls Rome, the chair of St. Peter, and the prin- 
cipal church, from which the unity of the priesthood is risen, 
Epist. 55. 

In the second age, St. Irenseus wrote thus : by apostolical tradi- 
tion, which the Roman bishops have preserved, all separatists are 
confounded. For to this church, by reason of its more powerful 
pricipality, it is necessary that all churches have, recourse, /. iii. c. 
3. But to return to the gospel. 

This power of governing his church Christ promised to St. 
Peter, when he gave him the name of Cephas or Peter, that is* 
a rock or foundation-stone, assuring him, that "upon this rock 
he would build his church, and the gates of hell should not pre- 
vail against it," Matt. xvi. 18. For if Christ the main rock or 
corner-stone, upon which the whole church is principally built, 
be for that very reason the principal head of it, he upon whom 
it is built under Christ, must needs be the head of it under 
Christ. Now that the rock, upon which our blessed Redeemer 
here promises to build his church is not literally his own person, 
nor St. Peter's confession of him, but St. Peter himself. Dr, 
Whitby, a Protestant divine, and a violent adversary of the 



8 the pope's supbemacy. 

church of Home, has proved by several arguments drawn from 
the text. And the following promise, v. 19. of giving to St. 
Peter the keys of the church, or " of the kingdom of heaven/' 
is a further confirmation of it. For keys in the scripture lan- 
guage denote government, or the chief stewardship, as Is. xxii* 
22. Apoc. iii. i. 

To convince the reader, that I have given him the literal sense 
of Matt. xvi. 18. 1 shall here set down Dr. Whitby's exposition 
of it: 4, as a suitable return to thy confession, 1 say also to thee, 
that thou art by name Peter, thr,t is, a rock : and upon thee, who 
art this rock, I will build my church, and 1 will give to thee the 
keys of the kingdom of Heaven : the power of making laws to 
govern my church," Paraph. T. I. p. 143. 

Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, expounds it in the 
Tery same manner. His words are these • '* Seeing thou hast 
so freely confessed me before men, L will also confess thee. Thou 
art Peter, &c. that is, the name by which thou art stiled and 
known by me is, that which signifies a stone or rock, and ac- 
cordingly my church shall so be built on thee, that it shall never 
he destroyed. " 

And page 92. '* What is here meant by the keys, (says he) is 
hest understood by Is. xxii. 22, &c. where they signify ruling 
the whole family or house of the king : and this (says he) being 
hy Christ accommodated to the church, denotes the power of go- 
verning in it." Thus Doctor Hammond. More could not well 
he expected from an adversary, and nothing but the force of 
truth could have extorted so much. 

But is it not something strange that our adversaries (who can- 
not discover in the Scripture the least ground of St. Peter's su- 
premacy, or that of his successors) should yet be so sharp- 
sighted, as to see that Christ has instituted in his church a lay- 
supremacy ? and to see this so manifestly, that their whole clergy 
has sworn it over and over, though the Scripture has not a syllable 
of it ? how unjust are interested men in their balances ! 

Besides the texts I have now insisted upon, there are some 
facts related in the acts, which plainly point at St. Peter's su- 
premacy over the other apostles. First, the part he acted in 
the election of St. Mathias ! which was the very first thing done 
hy the apostles after our Saviour's ascension. And it is manifest 
to any unbiassed reader, that he acted on that important occasion 
as head of the whole assembly. I am sure St. Chrysostom was of 
that opinion, as the following words clearly testify : see, says he, 
bow he acknowledges the flock entrusted to him I how he is the 
prince of the choir I he had reason to act here the first of all with 
authority, having them all delivered into his hands, Horn. 3. in 
Act. 2dly, whenever all the apostles are named, St. Peter is set 
in the first place. Nay, <St. Matthew does not only name him 
first, but calls him the first, Matt. x. 2, whereas the rest are 



*TKE POPE'S SUPTtEMAOT. 



«amed without any distinction of rank. 3dly, after tfcl d©s@eftt or 
the Holy Ghost, he was the first that signalized himself in a sermon 
to the Jews: and when the apostles were reflected upon by;, the 
people, he stood up and undertook their defence, Acts ii. 4ihlv\ 
he wrought the first miracle in confirmation of the gospel. Acts iiu 
Stlily, he was the first that preached it to the gentiles, Acts x. And 
6tlily, he was the first to whom their vocation was revealed — ibid. 

These facts are surely very considerable : and though they he 
net demonstrative proofs of St- Peter's supremacy, yet they con- 
tain circumstances, which very much corroborate the positive texts 
for it, and naturally lead an impartial reader to an idea of it. The 
Catechist is therefore very much out in saying, that the scriptures 
have not revealed any such thing as the Pope s supremacy. For 
if they have revealed St. Peter's supremacy, that of the Popes, who 
are his successors, follows as an undeniable consequence from it : 
unless he can either prove, that the form of church government, es- 
tablished by Christ was to last no longer than St. Peter : which 
will soon make void, and put an end to all his other institutions i 
or that some other christian bishop has always claimed that title 
upon better grounds. 

But whom does the Catechist affirm to be the head of the univer- 
sal church ? he answers Jesus Christ and him alone : for which he 
quotes two texts, Psal. xi. 6. JEph. i. 22. If he means, that Christ 
alone is the supreme, independent, and invisible head of the 
church, I know none but Jews, Pagans, Deists, and Atheists, that 
will contradict him, and. this is the undoubted meaning of the two 
texts he has quoted. But are not men to be governed immediately 
by men ? or is Christ's supreme headship over the church any ways 
prejudiced by his having a visible substitute or governor imme- 
mediately under him, and wholly depending on him ? no, surely, 
for God is the supreme Lord aud governor of the world : yet sov- 
ereign princes, kings, and emperors, stile themselves supreme 
lords and masters of their dominions immediately under God ; and 
that without the least disparagement or injury done to the divine 
prerogative. 

If anyone objects, that there is not an universal monarch under 
God to govern the whole world, nor by consequence, an universal 
vicar under Christ to govern the whole church ; I answer, the 
parity mi ± lit hold, if God had established one universal monarchy, 
as Christ has established one universal church upon earth. The 
difference is therefore plain and obvious to common sense. Be- 
cause we find no where that God has established an universal mo- 
narchy. But it is an unquestionable truth, that Christ has establish- 
ed an universal church upon earth, unless the creed be false. For 
what does the word Catholic else mean ? It means, undoubtedly, 
that the church of Christ is not limited to this or that particular 
nation like the temporal kin ^domr^of this world, but is the church 
of all nations according to scripture-language, " go and teach ye all 

c 



10 



OF OPEETENOE TO TTIE POPE. 



nations," Matt, xxviii. 19. Now as Christ has established one Ca- 
tholic church upon earth, so. to shew its unity, he was pleased to 
constitute one head for the government of it. Cyp.de Unit. Eccless. 



ARTICLE lit 

of obediencjTtq the pope, and allegiance to sovereigns. 

Tin third pretended error of Papists is> that kings and 
emperors with their respective subjects are at the Pope's 
disposal in general: and particularly that the persons 
and estates of the clergy are not under the power oj the 
the civil magistrates^ p, 8. 

ANSWER* 

If the Catechist means, that kings and emperors are subject to 
the Pope in the government of their temporal dominions ; or that 
the clergy are not bound to pay allegiance to their respective sov- 
ereigns, we utterly disown any such doctrine But if he means no 

more, than that all members of the church (even kings and emper- 
ors not excepted) are subject to her laws, and bound to be guided 
by those whom God has appointed to be their governors in spirit- 
uals, this we do not deny : and it is as certainly true, as that 
Christ has not chosen secular magistrates, but bishops, to govern his 
church, Acts xx. 28. 

Again, if by the second part of what he calls a Popish error he 
only means, that the clergy by imperial and church- laws are ex- 
empt from the jurisdiction of secular tribunals, until they have first 
stood their trial in the spiritual court, and that church-lands have 
several privileges : this is so far from being an abuse or error ; that 
the Magna Charta of Great Britain is not so ancient by many hun- 
dred years, as the privileges of the clergy. Nor am I clear sighted 
enough to comprehend, how this makes Papists worse subjects than 
Protestants. For as children may obey their parents, and the in- 
ferior clergy their bishops, so may Roman Catholics in all countries 
whatsoever obey their common pastor, without trans2ressinL r against 
the allegiance due to their respective sovereigns. Nay, if the Cat- 
echist will only take a view of Catholic countries, he will find the 
clergy there as faithful subjects, and as ready to open their purses 
in any exigency of the state, as in the dominions of Great Britain. 

He will also find the course of justice not at all obstructed by their 
privilege of being first tryed by their own spiritual peers. On the 
contrary, a wicked priest is as severely punished at Madrid or Paris, 
as a wicked parson in London : only with this difference, that he is 
first stripped of the marks of his priestly character, which he has 



■- 



WHETHER THE POPE BE ANTICHRIST. 



II 



dishonoured. Nor is his canonical gown suffered to accompany 
him to the gallows, or to hear a part in his disgrace. This, indeed, 
is a sight the people are strangers to on the other side of the Brit- 
ish seas. 

Hence it follows, that the Catechist might have spared that 
profusion of texts, whereof he is commonly very prodigal when they 
are nothing to the purpose. Those he has here produced serve on- 
ly to prove, that all, both laity and clergy, are bound to be faithful 
to, and obey their lawful sovereign, when they command nothing 
that is contrary to Christ's institutions, or the express law of 
God. Which no Catholic denies. 



ARTICLE IV. 

WHETHER THE POPE BE ANTICHRIST 1 

The fourth pretended error of Papists, that the Pope of 
Rome is next under Christ, p. 9. 

ANSWER. 

It is no error to say the Pope is next under Christ in spirituals, 
as kings and other sovereign princes are next under God in the 
government of their dominions in temporals. 

But then the Catechist puts this question, what say the Protest- 
ants ? to which he gives this answer. That he is antichrist. If the 
Catechist had said, that many hot-headed Protestant writers main- 
tain this ridiculous paradox in the heat of their invectives against 
Popery, he would have spoken truth. But to deliver in a familiar 
catechism written for children as a dogmatical point of Protestant 
belief, and charge it upon the whole Protestant church, is a bold- 
ness, I am persuaded, will be disapproved by the more sober and 
learned part of his communion, 

Mr. Thorndike, an eminent Protestant divine, has already done 
it in his just weights and measures, Ch. II. where he writes thus: 
" let not those, who charge the Pope to be antichrist, and Papists 
idolators, lead the people by the nose to believe that they can prove 
their supposition, when they cannot. *' Nay, Martin Luther him- 
self, who was all fire and tow, and bore the Pope as hearty a grudge 
as any man living, yet had many a heavy qualm upon his con- 
science, before he could work himself into a belief of it. For in 
the preface to his book, concerning the suppressing of private 
Masses, he writes thus : " with how many medicines and powerful 
evidences of scriptures have I scarce yet settled my conscience to 
be alone able to contradict the Pope ; and believe him to be anti- 
christ, the bishops his apostles, and the universities his stews ?— * 



12 



WILE TILER THE POPE BE ANTICHRIST. 



How often did my heart tremble and reprehend me by objecting 
their strongest and only argument, art thou alone wise, and do all 
err?" These were the troublesome pan i s Martin Luther laboured 
under, before he could persuade himself, that the Pope was anti-. 
christ, which the Catechist swallows down as ulibly as a sugar- plum, 
and delivers it to children as an article of Protestant doctrine. 

But, methmks before he ventured to pronounce so peremptorily 
upon the matter, he ought to have considered, first, that antichrist 
(as described by St. Paul, and in the Revelations) is a man that 
bids open defiance to Christ : and then he ou-jht to have examined, 
how this can agree to a christian bishop, who not only professes the 
faith of Jesus Christ, but sends yearly missionaries into pa .-an 
countries to preach and propagate his holy name amongst infidels: 
ii ay, and whenever the emperor is at war with the Turks, furnishes 
lar^e sums of money against those enemies of Christianity. Now is 
this acting; like antichrist, oris.it not rather performing the part of 
one zealous for the christian cause. 

2dly, before he ventured to deliver it as the doctrine of Protest*- 
ants m general, he bright to have consulted the authentic doctrine 
of the church of England, I mean, the thirty-nine articles of that 
religion ; and then considered seriously, whether he found any en- 
couragement there to fix so infamous a scandal upon a sacred person, 
who, by the dignity of his see is esteemed by Protestants themselves 
the first bishop in the world ; though they will not allow his su- 
premacy over the whole church. Now the 37th article of that re- 
ligion, which speaks expressly of the Pope, says not a word of his 
being antichrist. And is it credible that the compilers of those 
articles would have omitted a thing of that importance against the 
church of Rome, had they not looked upon it as a groundless fable 
fit only to be believed by idiots or madmen ? 

Again, the antichrist foretold and described in holy writ, is a 
persGn so clearly marked out and characterized, that it is next to 
impossible he should be in the christian world for any number of 
years and not be known by all mankind. If then, the Pope be this 
antichrist, and has by consequence, been so for many hundred years 
in the worlds is it not an incomprehensible mystery that he should 
sit upon his throne, and reign in the most famous city of the world 
for so many a zes together, yet, in ail that space of time, no emperor, 
no king, no bishop of whole Christendom should know any thing of 
the matter, untill Martin Luther told the first news of it ? " be as- 
tonished, O ye heavens, at this !" Jer. ii. 12. 

But what increases this wonder still more is, that, whereas, the 
Greek church separated herself from the church of Rome about the 
middle of the 9th an;e, and (allowing only for a short lived recon- 
ciliadon about five hundred years after) has ever since continued in 
her schism, yet in all that space of time the clear-sighted Greeks, 
though ever so highly exasperated against the Latins, nay, though 
they reproached thein with the most trivial things, as shaving their 



WHETHER THE POPE BE ANTICHRIST. 



13 



beards, consecrating in unleavened bread, eating hog's flesh, &c, 
yet, I say, it never entered into their thoughts to accuse them of 
having antichrist for the head of their church : which, if they could 
have done it with any colour of truth, would have fully justified 
their separation without any more ado. 

The plain truth of the matter is, the whole bulk of antiquity 
never understood the prophecies concerning antichrist, otherwise, 
than of a single man ; who is to come into the world not long 
before the day of judgment ; is to reign three years and six months, 
and to work such strange wonders by the power of the devil, who is 
then to be let loose, that the elect themselves will be in danger of 
being seduced, if that were possible. This was antiently the cur- 
rent literal exposition of the prophecies, concerning amichrist: but 
the ridiculous whim of applying them to the Bishop of Rome was 
as far from the thoughts of any ancient writer, as of applying it to 
the man of the moon. 

However, let us see what the Catechist has to prove it. The 
Pope (says he) is antichrist, because, none have more the marks 
of antichrist than he. And this he proves, because no antichrist 
can do worse things than he, p. 9. Most stoutly said ! and the 
text he brings for it, proves the Pope to be the antichrist as 
fully, as it proves him to be the great Mogul. It is as follows : 
^ iet no man beguile you by any means. For that day (i. e. the 
day of judgment) shall not come except there be a falling away 
first, and the man of sin be revealed, That son of perdition, who 
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or 
that is worshipped. So that he as Goti, sitteth in the temple of 
God, shewing himself that he is God. And then shall that 
wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the 
spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his 
coming : even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan 
with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all de • 
ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish/' 2 Thes. ii, 
3, 4. and 3, 9- 

Must not a man both have his heart strangely poisoned, and 
his head disturbed to apply this text to a long catalogue of chris- 
tian bishops succeediwg one another for many ages together ? we 
find here a single person described, who is to be the fore-runner 
of the clay of judgment; who is to be abandoned by God to a re- 
probate s^nsw in the study and practice of all sort of wickedness, 
and is therefore called the man of sin, and son of perdition.— 
Who will exalt himself above Qod, and sit in the temple of God 
to be worshipped as God. Whom the Lord will consume with 
the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his 
coming. And finally that he will be permitted by God to seduce 
the reprobate with signs and wonders wrought by the power of 
Satan : amongst which St. John in his revelations, chap. xiii. (to 
which the Catechist also refers his reader) reckons particularly > 



H 



WHETHER PROTESTANTS BE 



that he will make fire come down from heaven on the earth in the 
sight of men. This is tbe description of antichrist in the text 
quoted by him to prove that the Pope is the man. And, indeed, 
the picture St. Paul has drawn of him is as like the Pope, as a 
bear is like a man, and it is a full proof of the Catecbist's n.ost 
admirable skill in applying texts. But what wonder is it ? his 
pious design was to sediiGe the ignorant, who will believe 
that the Pope is a horned beast, and has a long tail, if they be 
but told so. 

Ay, but the Pope claims to himself the headship or superiority 
over the whole church, and that is a clear mark of antichrist : be- 
cause it is an usurpation of a title belonging only to Jesus Christ, 
who is alone the head of the universal church. But I have already- 
told the Gatechist, that Christ alone is the supreme, independent, 
and invisible head of the church, as God alone is the supreme, in- 
dependent, and invisible governor of the world. But as this hin- 
ders not emperors, kings, and sovereign princes from justly stiling 
themselves supreme lords and masters of their dominions under 
God ; so the supreme headship of Christ over the church is no 
ways prejudiced by his having, even according to his own institu- 
tion, a supreme, visible, and independent substitute or governor, 
immediately under him. For if this be a clear mark of antichrist, 
it will follow, first, that antichrist was established by Christ himself, 
and received his commission and authority immediately from him.— 
2dly, that Leo the Great, that venerable and holy bishop of Rome, 
who maintained the supremacy of his see with the utmost vigour, 
was antichrist. And 3dly, that St. Gregory the Great, who like- 
wise asserted his supremacy as vigorously as any Pope ever did, 
and to whose zeal England owes its conversion, w r as also antichrist : 
and so England was converted by antichrist to Christianity ; which 
I really believe every true Englishman and Christian will be 
ashamed to own. 

ARTICLE V. 
Section I. 

WHETHER PROTESTANTS EE GUILTY OF HERESY ? 

The fifth pretended error of Papists is, in holding that 
Protestants are heretics in separating from the?n,p. 10. 

ANSWER. 

We hold that there is but one Catholic church, and but one true 
faith. The first is an express article of the Nicene creed, which 
(according to the doctrine of the church ofEngland, 8th art. of reli- 
gion) ought thoroughly to be received and believed. The 2d is ex* 



GUILTY OF HEUESY . 



IS 



pressly taught by St. Paul, saying, " one Lord, one faith, one bap* 
Xism," ' Eph. iv. 5. Whence it follows, thatthey who are notmembers 
of this one Catholic church, nor profess this one faith (allowing only 
for invincible ignorance) are truly heretics. And therefore if Pro- 
testants persist obstinately to deny their faith, and live in a separate 
communion from this Catholic church, it is their fault if we cannot 
entertain a better opinion of them than the ancient fathers had of ail 
those, who, in former aues, separated themselves from the faith and 
communion of the Catholic church. 

But let us see, whether in this we do not act conformably to the 
word of God .It is- evident, from the gospel, that Christ »ave a dou- 
ble power to those whom he placed in his ministry. The first, of 
teaching truths of the Christian religion : and of this he says, "he 
that hears you, hears me," Luke x. 16. The second of governing 
those that should embrace his faith. Of this St. Paul says, " obey 
them that have the rule over you," Heb. xiii. 17. The first power 
was designed to keep Christians in the unity of faith. The se- 
cond to keep them in the bonds of a regular and eternal commu- 
nion. Therefore rejecting what the pastors of Christ's church 
deliver as the Christian doctrine, has, in all ages of Christianity 
from the apostles to us, been called heresy ; aad refusing to sub- 
mit to the government of lawful pastors, has, likewise, in all 
ages, been accounted schism. But both the one and the other 
are reckoned by St, Paul amongst deadly sius. " Avoid, (says 
he) after the first and second admonition, a man that is an here- 
tic ; knowing that he who is such is subverted, and that he sins, 
being condemned of himself," Tit. iii, fO, U. Now if denying; 
and opposing the public faith of the church be not the sin of 
heresy, L should be glad to know what sin it is. But a plain ex- 
ample will give light to the matter. 

I question not but every Protestant will grant that there have 
been heretics in the world : and \ shall mention one, of whose 
just claim to that title no true Protestant can doubt. I mean 
Arius: who denied the consubstantialitv of the Son. And 
though lie pretend to have plain scripture for his doctrine (as 
these words of Christ, " my father is greater than 1,'') this hin- 
dered not his being condemned for an heretic by the great coun- 
cil of Nice. And indeed he had ail the marks of one. As 
maintaining a doctrine contrary to the faith of the whole visible 
church of Christ in being ; preaching without, a commission from 
her : appealing from her authority to the dead letter of scripture, 
as all heretics do, and jnaking his own private judgment the sole 
interpreter of it. In a word, an invincible obstinacy even after 
sentence juridically pron®unced against him, first by his imme- 
diate superior, and afterwards by the supreme tribunal of the 
chureh. These are the usual marks of what we call an arch- 
heretic, and were, undoubtedly, very notorious in Arius, and bj 
consequence in all his followers- 



>5 



WHETHER PROTESTANTS BE 



„ Now the thing I demand is precisely this, viz. some satisfactory 
reason, why Arius was an heretic any more than Martin Luther, 
John Calvin, Bucer, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and other heads of 
the pretended Protestant reformation? or, (which amounts to the 
same) that some proper and distinguishing mark of an heretic may 
be found to belong to Arius, which cannot be appropriated to the 
other forementioned reformers. If the Catechist can perform this, 
he will do a signal piece of service to the Protestant cause, and 
have just reason to quarrel with us for accusing him and his Pro- 
testant brethern of iieresy. But if this cannot be done, (and I fear 
the task will prove somewhat hard,) then it follows, that the respec- 
tive reformed churches founded by Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, &c, 
are all heretical churches like the Arians ; and not part of the true 
c' urch of Christ* 

But let us now hear the Catechist. He puts the question.-^- 
What say Protestants to this ? which he answers thus : they say 
that it beinsr s ranted that Protestants did separate themselves from 
the church of Rome> yet they did it upon just grounds. But, lest 
this should look like begying the question, he glosses it over with 
a shew of reason in the following manner : "because (says he) they 
did it for the sake of Christ, and the purity of religion ; for which 
reason the are so recommended to do," 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16, 17, 18 — 
<; What concord has Christ witli Belial ? or what part has he that 
believeth with an infidel ? what agreement ha'h the temple of God 
with idols? ye are the temples of the living God: wherefore, come 
out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and 
touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and I will be 
a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saiiii 
the Lord Almighty. 

Is not this a most admirable text to prove that Protestants sepa- 
rated themselves from the church of Rome for the sake of Christ 
and purity of religion ! The primitive Christians are here exhor- 
ted by St. Paul to separate themselves from the commerce and so- 
ciety of heathens : and our judicious Catechist infers from it there- 
fore Protestants separated themselves from the church of Rome for 
the sake of Christ and purity of religion. Who is able to resist 
the force of such strong reasoning ? But, suppose the Puritans, 
Anabap'dsts, or Quakers, should alledge the very same reason and 
text to justify their separation from the church of England, would it 
not be satisfac'ory to a miracle, and give great edification to all 
true Protestants ? 

Now let us bear the following question and answer. Q. What 
was there in the Romish religion, that occasioned Protestants to 
separate themselves from it ? A. In that it was a supers! itious, 
idolatrous, damnable, bloody, traitorous, blind, and blasphemous 
religion ; p. 10. This is such an outrageous piece of billiugsgate- 
slander, as mi^ht provoke a man to an immoderate heat. But to 
convince the Catechist that I am both free from passion, and have 



OUILTf Of sfelffeSY; 



r? tender concern for him ; I heartily wish him some good physic to 
eo<*l his head, and some grains of Christian charity to correct his 
heart. For lie stands highly in need of both. As to the charge of 
Popprv being d superstitious, idolatrous, damnable, and blasphem- 
ous religion, I shall give my answer to it whett I speak of invoca- 
tion of saints, images, relics, merit, &c. the other injurious titles 
shall be examined in the Appendix? 

However the Catechist being a person of nice justice, and one 
tli at would not for the world wrong any but Papists, has a scruple 
of seeming to allow that Protestants separated themselves from us, 
and corrects himself by saying, that the church of Rome more pro- 
perly separated from them, than they from the church of Rome ; p» 
3 1. It seems then that Papists being conscious to themselves, that 
they profess a superstitious, iddlatrdus, damnable, blriody, traito- 
rous, blind, and blasphemous religion, had the charity and ^ood 
manners to separate themselves from Protestants* lest these should 
be infected by keeping such bad company. But what need had the 
Catechist to make Papists be thought the authors of the separation, 
if he really believed them to be as bad as he represents them ? on 
the contrary, he ou-ht rather to glory in the Protestants having se- 
parated themselves from a knot of such wicked people. I must 
needs say. this looks as if his conscience reproached him, that he has 
wronged them. 

But let that be as it will, I have always been of opinion, that a 
ship breaks loose from the shore, and not the shore from it. And 
why so ? because the shore remains where it was, but not the ship. 
Now just so did the church of Rome at the time of the pretended 
reformation. She remained where she had been for many hundred 
years ; that is, she continued to maintain the doctrine she had al- 
ways tan. ht, and which had been professed in England for nine 
hundred years without interruption. But the first reformers did not 
remain where they were before. For tney had all received their 
baptism in the church of Rome, and professed her faith for many 
years. It is therefore absurd to say, (as the Catechist does) that 
the church of Home more properly separated from Protestants, than 
Protestants from the church of Rome. However if he only means 
that the Pope excommunicated Luther and his adherents, for re- 
viving errors condemned by the Catholic church, some above six 
hundred, and some above a thousand years before, and that Luther 
did not excommunicate the Pope, I shall not quarrel with him about 
the matter: for if that sufficed to make the Pope the author of the 
schism, it would follow that the Catholic church, which has always 
excommunicated obstinate heretics, has been tlie author of all the 
schisms occasioned by the heresies they broached : which is as ab- 
surd as to say that the parliament, when it attaints rebellious sub- 
jects, is the author of the rebellion. 

Let us now see whether the Catechist, who is so fierce in his at- 
tacks upon the ^church of Rome, will be able to stand his ground 

D 



OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 



against -the strength of an objection relating to the English refor- 
mation of that church : to wit, its o\ving both the beginning, pro- 
gress and full establishment of it to the secular power, without the 
free consent of the clergy, who are the guides and governors in 
spirituals, appointed by God himself; 

Section I. 

The English Reformation was made without the free consent 
of the Clergy. 

When our adversaries are told, that the late changes in religion 
(which they call the reformation) were made in a direct opposition 
to the church authority and lawful superiors: the common answer 
is, that though this may be true of foreign parts, yet in England, 
the bishops and the whole clergy freely reformed themselves by 
their own authority, without any previous threats or fesrs, or any 
interested compliance with the designs of the court. 

This, if true, would neither justify the reformation, nor hinder it 
from being made against a lawful and superior church authority, as 
will appear by and by. But, indeed, the fact was quite otherwise. 
For the body of the English clergy never consented to the reforma- 
tion, until it was not safe to oppose it. This is proved unanswerably 
in the 5th part of church government* I shall only mention a few 
particulars. Which yet, perhaps, may be sufficient to let the reader 
see, that the English reformation in all its three changes M as a mere 
creature of the states 

1. The reformation began in the 22d year of king Henry VIIL, 
was carried on in the minority of king Edward VI., and finished by 
queen Elizabeth. As to the present state of it, it is wholly owing 
to her. For what king Henry, and the duke of Somerset had done 
in his pupil's name, was all repealed by the joint authority of church 
and state in queen Mary's reign. The original cause of the refor- 
mation was this : king Henry VIIL, finding the Pope would not 
agree to let him put away queen Catherine (after he had lived with 
her in marriage above twenty years) that he might be able to do it 
himself, resolves to take upon him the new title of supreme head of 
the church of England in spirituals. This was to strip the Pope at 
once of a two-fold title of spiritual supremacy over him and his sub- 
jects. First, as St. Peters successor in the care of the whole 
church. Secondly, as the western patriarch. The first of these 
titles, when Luther began to question it, had been asserted briskly 
by king Henry VIII, who had, upon that account received from the 
Pope the title of defender of the faith. The Pope's second claim 
admitted of no dispute ; it being an uncontested fact, that in spiri- 
tual concerns, the island had been nine hundred years under him as 
patriarch or chief metropolitan of the west. But the king being re- 
solved to be the only spiritual head of his people, brought the clergy 



fjY THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 



19 



over to his side by this stratagem. He demands an hundred thou- 
sand pounds of them for the expenses, which, by their faults, he said 
he had been at in procuring authentic testimonies of foreign univer- 
sities against his marriage. The clergy refusing to give so great a 
sum, lie cast them under a praemunire. So that now they are liable 
to be imprisoned, and to have their estates confiscated at his pleasure. 
For their ransom they offer a hundred thousand pounds. But are 
told by the court, that it is too late unless they will also own the 
-king's supremacy. They consent with this reserve, as far as it is 
consistent with the laws of Christ* But the king will have no li- 
mitation. They, must either absolutely submit, or the premunire 
must be executed. The whole is related by archbishop Parker in 
bis Antiq. Mr if an. p* 326. Thus was the first and main article of 
the reformation gained. And we see what mighty freedom the 
clergy had in it. I must needs call it the main article ; because the 
spiritual supremacy of the crown gave both a being and authority to 
all the other parts of the reformation. For none of the three re- 
forming princes undertook that work either in the name or by the 
authority of the clergy, but only by virtue of their own spiritual 
'Supremacy, and as supreme judges in controversies of religion. 

King Henry carried the reformation on no farther, However, he 
took care it should never be in the power of the clergy to oppose 
the court in matters qf religion. For he peremptorily required of 
them, says Dr. Heylin. that no constitution or ordinance shall be 
hereafter by the clergy enacted, promulgated, or put in execution, 
unless the king's highness approve it. And to this., says he, on the 
jt5thofMay, 1532, they made their absolute submission. Thus, far 
then these gentlemen made hut a mean figure in the reformation. 

2. In the first year of king Edward VI., (a child often years old) 
the clergy was assembled to push it forward. But nothing could be 
got from them* On the contrary, the convocation offered a remon- 
strance to the king (recorded by Dr. Stillingfleet, Iren. part 2. chap. 
8.) that no statute should pass concerning religion, without the as- 
sent of the clergy. Nothing surely could be more reasonable, if it 
was to be their act. But this could not be obtained. 

3* In the 3d and 4th years of the same prince, the parliament 
authorised sixteen laymen, and as many of the clergy (whom the 
court should nominate) to make what changes they or the greater 
part of them thought fit, in the laws of the church. So that here 
one clergyman's vote, (and it is strange if the court could not find 
one for their purpose) joined with sixteen laymen, was enough to 
carry on the reformation, against the whole body of the English 
clergy. But before this the duke of Somerset, in king Edward's 
name, had made almost a general reformation through the realm. — 
For it was not thought safe to let it be done by the clergy';, both 
Mr. Fuller and Dr. Heylin confess. 

4. The forty-two articles of that religion, anno, h56% earrj in 
their front the name of a synod. Indeed the clergy had now been !1\ e 



20 



&F THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 



years modelling, as it were on a. stage, new players coming in and 
the old ones being cast out, says Fox, p. 1180. But Mr Fuller lets 
his readers know, that these articles were not really made by any 
synod at all : and the true reason, says he, why the ^ing would not 
trust the diffusive body of the convocation with a power of medling 
with matters of religion was a just jealousy which he had of the ill? 
affectiqn of the major, part thereof, L. 7. Hist, p, 42Q, 

Bishop Ridley gives us the same account. The most part of the 
clergy, says he, parsons, prebendaries, archdeakons, deans, and the 
bishops too, for the most part, were never persuaded in their hearts, 
(of the reformation) but from the teeth forward, and for the king's 
sake; Fox, p 0 . 1G 16- So that if king Edward's reformation had 
been left to the clergy? it had never been made at all. 

5. It is no small confirmation of this, that when a synod was 
called within five or six days after queen Mary's coronation, and 
before any new moulding of the ecclesiastical body? all but six vo- 
. ted against king Edward's reformation. 

6. Queen Elizabeth, as Dr. Heylin fairly owns, went the same 
way to work in the reformation, which hex two predecessors, king 
Henry and king Edward had done before her. That is, she did all 
by her own authority. But when the times, says he, were better 
settled (that is, when she had changed, frightened) punished, and 
overawed the clergy) she left church-work to the disposing of 
church-men. Thus Dr. Fleylin, ^ccles. vind- §• 6. p. 36. Indeed 
she might then safely do it. 

7. Her first parliament gives her full power and authority (by 
virtue of this act) to name and authorise such persons as her majes- 
ty shall think meet to reform the nation, act. 1. Eliz. q. 1. Though 

i all the bishops that were, then in parliament, opposed this statute ; 
•Cambden, 1. Eliz. And, now, without nicking use of any one cler? 
. gyman. she can reform the whole clergy. 

8. She stood, doubtless, in, nee$ of a pretty large commission — - 
For Dr. Heylin gives this account of her clergy, " the bishops at 
that time, says he., were reduced to a narrower number than ever 
before : there being no more than fifteen of that sacred order left 
alive. These, being called by some of the lords of the council, 
were required to take the oath of supremacy." Kitchen of Lanr 
daft", (whom Camb/len stiles the calamity of his see) only takes it : 
who having formerly submitted to every change under king Henry 
Till., king Edward VI., and queen Mary, reserved £o shew himself 
no changeling in not conforming himself to the pleasures of the 
higher pow ers. By all the rest it was refused. Whereupon they 
were deprived of their bishoprics. And with them fifteen presi- 
dents of colleges, twelve deans, twelve arch-deauQus, six abbots, 
and fifty prebendaries were removed. 

9. As to the convocation, which sat at the same time with her 
first- parliament, Mr. Fuller writes thus of it, L. 9. It is observed in 
nature, that when one twin is of an unusual, strength and bigness, the 



OF THE ENGLISH KEFOHMATION. 21 

other born with it is weak and dwindles away : so 1 ere, qneen Eliz- 
abeth's first parliament baing very active in matters of religio i, the 
convocation, younger brother thereunto* was little employe I, less 
regarded. It seems church-business was not yet to be trusted in 
the hands of church-men. 

10. The same historian (L. 9. p- 54.) copied from the authentic 
register, thefollowing articles signed by the convocation and by both 
universities. 

First, in the sacrament of the altar, after consecration, the na- 
tural body and blood of Christ is really present, under the app3ar- 
ance of bread and, wine : 

2. The substance of bread and wine does not remain after con- 
secration. 

3. In the Mass is offered the true body and blood of Christ, a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. 

4. The chief power of governing the church of Christ upon earth, 
was given to St. Beter, and to his lawful successors in the see apos^ 
tolic, as to vicars of Christ. To these the convocation added : 

5. The authority of treating and denning matters, relating to 
faith, sacraments, and church discipline, has always hitherto be- 
longed, and ought only to belong to the pastors of the church, whom 
the Holy Ghost has appointed in it for that end, and not to laymen. 

If these few instances be not enough to convince any impartial 
reader, that the body of the clergy came not into the reformaton by 
their own free and unbiassed choice, I must confess I know not what 
evidence means. But, I have still an observation or two to make. 

The first is extremely notorious, and Dr. Heylin has publicly 
-confessed it, that the reformation was not an effect of pure zeal, but 
qualified with a desire, not altogether spiritual, of church lands and 
treasures of an immense value. The first royal reformer, and his 
trusty adherents in both houses of parliament, had the largest and 
best share of the prize. But still there were many sweet bits left 
both for the crown ajid the nobility, that it should afterwards engage 
in so christian and profitable an undertaking. And having such a 
a prodigious gain in hand, and Heaven in reversion, at a much easier 
purchase than formerly, it is no wonder that the reformation went 
glibly on in spite of the clergy, who (besides wives and children) 
got little by it. Some of them opposed the court-projects ; and by 
suffering, taught others to conform. The greatest part l^ad no vOi- 
cation to martyrdom, and so were forced to submit. 

The second observation is, that king Henry and queen Elizabeth 
(besides the fairest prospect imaginable of enriching themselves and 
their friends) had other powerful views, which made the reformation 
necessary. He had no other means to be rid of queen Catherine: 
and queen Elizabeth being born of a second wife, whilst the first was 
living, knew very well (says Dr. Heylin) that her title to the crown 
and the Pope's supremacy, could not stand together; and that she 
eould not maintain the one without a discarding of the other. She 



22- 



6F THE ENGLISH EEFGEMATIOSf. 



found then ©ne of her greatest interests upon earth in the reforma- 
tion ; which was probably the reason of her being so much more 
clear-sighted than her clergy. 

I observe thirdly, that since the Pope (even setting aside that su^ 
premacy which he has as St, Peter's successor) had another un- 
doubted, one over England, as the western patriarch, confirmed by 
the practice of nine hunched years, which therefore gave him a more 
ancient title over the kingdom in spiritual concerns, than any of the 
royal reformers could perhaps shew they had to the crown ; it was 
but just that the clergy should have freely debated a matter, in which 
their own duty, as well as the conscience of their sovereign, was so 
immediately concerned. But it seems the court was of another opi^ 
nion in all the three reigns. 

If you say, first, what king Edward did by the advice of his privy 
council, was approved by Cranmer- (archbishop of Canterbury) 
who was in it ; I answer, 1st, that the same form would have been 
used, though Cranmer had dissented. 2. That he did not act there 
as archbishop of Canterbury. 3. What is this to the body of the 
clergy ? 

If you say, 2aly, that nil the acts of parliament were made hy the 
lords spiritual and temporal. I answer, that this form too is used, 
though all the bishops vote against the act. As it happened in 
queen Elizabeth's first parliament for reformation. 

If you say, 3dly, that in her time the clergy approved it, I an- 
swer : it was not so in the beginning : for then the bishops, the. 
convocation, and both universities were against it. And if after- 
warwards the clergy consented, it was not until they had seen lives 
and livings lost, incumbents changed, and that it was utterly un- 
safe to resist the measures of the court. Now, I would only ask one 
question. If the Pope had used the same method in the Council ©f 
Trent: if he had made a great number of the bishops incapable of 
preferments, had deprived them of their bishoprics, loaded them 
with chains, or sent them into banishment to fright the rest, would 
the council have been free ? yet this was all the liberty that queen 
Elizabeth's clergy had when they consented to the reformation. 

But let us suppose after all, that they had given their consent 
with all the freedom imaginable, it must still be owned, that the 
reformation was made in opposition to a lawful church authority, 
even setting aside the question of the Pope's supremacy by divine 
right. Unless we imagine that nine hundred years are not enough 
to fix the right of a metropolitan ; that parts are not subject to the 
whole ; and that the whole body of Catholic pastors has no authority 
over a few dissenting prelates. For 1st, the English bishops, with 
their clergy, had been a part of the Avestem patriarchate for nine 
hundeed years. 2dly, they were also a part of the whole Catholic 
clergy, against which they reformed. 

Hence these two important truths of necessity follow : 

First, that England before the reformation, was subject to a 



OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 



^3 



foreign right, in the concerns of religion, and that this right is such 
as no human power can over-rule- Because as a part of Christ's 
church, it was subject to the whole. And no monarch, I hope, will 
pretend to deprive the whole church of Christ of that spiritual 
power, which Christ himself was pleased to give it over its members. 

It follows, secondly, that the reformation cannot be justified. 

For, iirst, it is against common sense to say, that twenty-six 
bishops are included in the whole, and yet not subject to the au- 
thority and censures of it. It were, says Mr, Thomdike, a contra- 
diction for the church of England to pray for the Catholic church 
and the unity of it, and yet to renounce the jurisdiction of the 
whole church, and the general councils thereof over England, — . 
Due ways of composing diff. p. 7« 

Secondly, it is clear by the universal tradition of all ages, that 
the supreme authority of deciding controversies in religion, is in the 
mean body of Catholic pastors, so that a few dissenting bishops (as 
twenty-six for example, against many hundreds) of how fair a cha- 
racter soever, are not to be regarded. 

Thirdly, if twenty-six bishops may outvote many hundreds, six, 
or a much less number, may outvote twenty-six, and by this means 
it will be impossible for the faithful to know certainly who are the 
judges and guides whom they are to follow : unless the people 
must take the cause into their own hands, and by the merits of it 
judge their judges, and over-rule their guides. That is, unless they 
must invert the whole order of judicature which Christ established 
for them in his church, when he appointed them " pastors and teach- 
ers, that they might not be tossed to and fro, and carried about with 
everv wind of doctrine : the faith of which pastors the people ought 
to follow," Eph.iv. II, 14. Heb.xni. 7. 

Fourthly, either controversies in religion must be ended by au- 
thority, or only by the merits of the cause. If by the authority of 
many judges, it is evident to common sense that the lesser part is 
not to be regarded. If by the merits of the case only, all disputes 
in religion are as endless as law-suits would be, if there were no 
certain means left in the state to put an end to them, besides the 
law itself, and the contending parties. A state thus established 
would fye worse than bedlam : and therefore I cannot but hope, it 
will be \hought to border too much upon blasphemy to say, that 
Christ hsjts left no certain rule or judgment in his church, for the 
ending ol' controverses in matters of religion, but only by law or the 
merits of the cause, which are the same thing. 

That twenty-six English bishops (for we have no more sees) to- 
gether with their clergy, were but a small part of Catholic pastors, 
is evident by this : that when the reformation began, there were in 
their mother-church, not much less than an hundred universities, and 
near a thousand bishops. To which, if we add those who had died 
in her faith and communion, the number of her bishops alone, with- 
out including any of the inferior clergy,, could not well amount to 



24 



THE CHURCH OF HOME 



less at the time of the reformation, than fifty thousand. Some of 
which, I hope, may have as fair a reputation of piety and learning, as 
any of the reformers* 

ARTICLE VL 
Section I; 

WHETHER^ THE CHURCH OF ROME BE THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH? 

The sixth pretended error in Papists is, their lioldiny that 
the Church of Rome is the only true Church. 

ANSWER, 

When we say, that the church of ftome is the only true church, 
we neither mean the city, nor the diocese of Rome. For that is 
but a part of the true church ; and any Catholic city or diocese in 
the world, is as much a true church as the city or diocese of Rome. 
No Papist therefore ever was so weak as to mean this. J>ut their 
true and only meaning is, that, that body or society of Christians 
(whereever dispersed throughout, the whole world) which is united 
in faith and communion with the bishop of Rome, is alone the true 
church of Christupon earth : and we prove it thus : 

There is but one faith, and one Catholic church. The first is 
expressly taught by St. Paul, saying, "one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism, Eph. iv, 5. and we profess the other in the Nicene Creed, 
as I have already remarked. So that, if there be more than one 
true faith, St. Paul is mistaken ; and if there be more than one true 
Catholic church the creed deceives us , and since it is impious to 
say either the one or the other, it only remains to shew, that the 
Church of Rome is this true Catholic church, which I prove from 
this uncon'ested principle, viz: that there was a true Catholic 
church upon earth before the reformation. For if there was not, it 
will follow that this article of the creed, I believe one, holy Catho- 
lic, and apostolic church was false for many hundred years together, 
because the pretended reforma'ion only began in the year 1517. 

Plere then Protestants must do one of these two things. They 
must either grant, that the church of Rome was this true Catholic 
church before the reformation, or mark out some other visible body 
or society of men, in which the true church of Ctirist. subsisted 
before that time. If ihey grant the first, it is all we can desire : we 
gain our cause, and the dispute is at an end. For, if the church of 
Rome was the irue Catholic church before the reformation, she is 
so now ; because her faith is the same now, it was then. Besides, 
it will follow, that Protestants separated themselves, and continue 
separated from the true Catholic church, which alone suffices lo 
condemn them. 



THE ONLY Til THE CHtTRCH. 



But if they deny that the church of Home was the true Catho- 
lic church before the reformation, then they are bound to shew us 
some other visible body or society of Christians, in which the true 
church subsisted before that time : and to perform this effectually, 
they are bound to let us know in what part of the world this church 
had her being ; as likewise what particular countries) kings, and 
bishops were in her communion. And lastly, they must specify to 
us the name and diocese of the bishop or bishops of this church, by 
whom the first English Protestant bishop was ordained, and from 
whom the church of England derives her mission. But this being 
a task impossible for them to perform, I do not see what other 
choice our English Protestants have left them, but either to say 
that the creed was false for many hundred years before the refor- 
mation, or own that the church in communion with the see of Rome 
was the only true Catholic, church before that time: and if she was 
the only true Catholic church when Protestants reformed her, she 
is so still : because she has not changed her faith since that time, as 
I have already observed. 

I fancy the Catechist foresaw he would be pinched very hard with 
this argument, when he put the following question. Where was 
the Protestant religion before Luther ? To which he gives this an- 
swer: in the Bible doctrinally, and in its fruits in the hearts and 
lives of all good men, p. 25. Very pretty indeed ! it seems then 
that the Protestant religion had a being in the world before the Pro- 
testant reformation. Nay, I begin to fear, the Popes themselves 
were true Protestants : for none but God alone could know their 
hearts. However, it is very strange, nay, inconceivable, how 
those should be good men, who had the Protestant religion in their 
hearts, yet professed and practised Popery like the rest of the 
Christian world. For it follows hence, that they were either 
ashamed or afraid to profess the religion they believed in their hearts ; 
and so the good men, our Catechist speaks of, will be found to have 
been rank hypocrites, and dissemblers of their religion. 

But it is observed, that the Catechist speaks of Protestaney in 
general. For he asks, where the Protestant religion was before 
Luther ? and there is no reason to believe that one part of it was 
any more destitute of a being than the other. Well then, where 
was Protestaney before the reformation ? in what region of this 
sublunary world was it to be found ? to which our Catechist an- 
swers very discreetly, in the Bible doctrinally, and in its fruits in 
the hearts and lives of all good men. What ! was Lutheran Pro- 
testantcy, Calvinian Protestaney, Episcopal Protestaney, Puri- 
tanical Protestaney. Anabaptistical Protestantcy, and numberless 
other sects and subdivisions of Protestaney, were these, I say, all 
in the Bible, and the hearts of all good men ? If they were, it must 
needs be granted, that both the Bible, and the hearts of all good 
men stoodhighly injneed of a thorough reformation, to purge them of 
the innumerable contradictions crowded into them by such a multitude 



26 



THE CHURCH OF ROME. 



of jarring sects. For, if Lutheran Protestaocy be true, Calvinian Pro- 
testancy inustbe false : and if church of England Protestaneybe true, 
Puritanical and Anahaptistical Protestancy must likewise be false : 
vet, ail these are branches of the Protestant religion, and if it was 
in the Bible and hearts of all good men before the reforn sation, 
then it follows plainly that the Bible and hearts of all good men 
were stuffed with contradictions: 

But does not the poor gentleman see, that he has here cut out a 
cloak for the very worst of heretics to ewer themselves with ; for 
ask a Quaker where his religion was before James Naylor ? and he 
will answer as ready as the Catechist, that it was in the bible doc- 
trinally, and in its fruits in the hearts and lives of all good men. — ■ 
And so every heretic in the world has a singular obligation to the 
Catechisi for having furnished him with this ingenious answer to 
help him out at a dead lift. 

However, he is fully resolved, that the church of Home shall not 
be so much as a true church : as wiil appear in the following ques- 
;ions and answers : 

Q. What say the Protestants to this ? (viz. that the church of 
Rome is the only true church.) 

A. They deny it* 

Q> Why? 

A. Because the Roman church agrees not with the definition of 
a true church. 

Q. What is the true church ? 

A. The true church is an universal congregation or fellowship of 
God's faithful elect people, built upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone, p. 11. 

The definition is not amiss, if he does not mean that the church 
upon earth consists only of the elect. The reason is, 1. Because a 
man may be a member of the true church, yet live and die wicked- 
ly in it ; and by consequence be excluded out of the number of 
God's elect. 2. If the true churchbe composed only of the elect, itfol- 
lows, that as the elect are wholly unknown to us, the true church 
is, and has always been invisible. Whence it follows again, that 
it has always been impossible for any man to apply himself to the 
true church for instruction, ordination, or a lawful mission : which 
evacuates all episcopal and pastoral authority : because no man can 
know, whether the bishops and pastors, to whom he Mould apply 
himself, be of the number of the elect, nor by consequence, whether 
they be members of the true church. Which is most certainly 
false doctrine. 

Section II. 

THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 

The Catechist concludes this article with this question, what are 
the marks of the true church ? he answers, such as these : pure and 



THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 



27 



sound doctrine preached, the sacraments administered according to 
Christ's institution, and the right use of the ecclesiastical discipline, 

p. 11, 12. All this is very true, but altogether unsatisfactory 

For if any one should ask him, where this true church in which 
pure and sound doctrine is preached, is to be found ? This ques- 
tion remains yet wholly unanswered: yet here lies the knot of the 
difficulty, and if it be not clearly resolved, we may easily mistake a 
false church for the true one, because all Christian churches, though 
ever so opposite to one another, pretend to teach pure and sound 
doctrine, and administer the sacraments according to Christ's in- 
stitution. So that the Catechist's account of the true church is as 
little to the purpose as if a stranger, inquiring for the best inn 
upon the road, a man should tell him, that the best inn is where 
there is the best accommodation, For though this be very true, 
yet unless some other marks; be given, as the sign of the house, the 
name of the man that keeps it, and the like, a stranger will be as 
much at a loss to find it, as if nothing were said to him, In like 
manner though what the Cateehist says concerning the true church 
be unquestionable, yet in respect of the greatest part of mankind it 
is of no manner of use to direct them how to distinguish this one 
true church from the many false ones, that lay claim to it, with- 
out certain external marks whereby it may be clearly known in what 
particular body or society of men this church may be found. 

But I presume, the Cateehist foresaw this would be a dangerous 
undertaking, and might prove fatal to his church, if none of the ex- 
ternal marks of the true one should be found to belong to her. I 
shall therefore do it for him, or rather St. Austin shall do it for 
us both. 

This holy doctor writes thus against the Maiichees. " Not to 
" speak of that wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the 
" Catholic church, there are many other things, which most justly 
" hold me in her communion. 1. The agreement of people and 
" nations holds me. 2. Authority begun with miracles, nourished 
" with hope? increased with charity, confirmed by antiquity, holds 
•* me. 3» A succession of bishops from the see of St. Peter, to 
" whom Christ after his resurrection committed his flock, to the 
" present episcopacy holds me. 4. And lastly, the very name of 
" Catholic holds me, of which this church alone has not without 
" reason so kept the possession, that though all heretics desire to 
il be called Catholics, yet if a stranger asks them where Catholics 
" meet, no heretic dares point out his own house or his own church." 
Con. Epist. Fund. c. 4. 

These were the external marks, by which St. Austin distin- 
guished the true Catholic church from false ones, and which [held 
him stedfast in her communion, viz, 1. The agreement of people 
and nations. 2. The evidence of miracles. 3. A continued .suc- 
cession of bishops from St. Peter, the first bishop of R ome to him, 
who then sat in the apostolic chair. And 4. The name ©f Catlio- 



2S 



THE MARKS Or THE TRUE CHURCH. 



lie .attributed to the true church by the creed itself. Let u* now 
see to what church these marks can be appropriated. 

The first, viz. the agreement of people and nations may justly 
be called the distinctive mark of the church in communion 
with the see of Rome. For though all nations never were in her 
communion at one and the same time, yet there is scarce a nation 
in the known world but has been in her communion some time or 
other. All the reformed nations in Europe were in her communion 
for many hundred years : and so was the whole Greek church 
until the middle of the ninth century. In St. Austin's time, though 
there were yet many heathen nations, there was scarce a Christian 
nation under the sun but was in her communion. Nay, excepting 
Muscovy alone, which received its Christianity from the schismati- 
cal Greeks, I cannot call to mind any one people or nation, which 
upon its conversion was not immediately united in faith and com^ 
munion with the see of Rome. Now, I presume, no reformed 
church will pretend to any thing like this. It is therefore evident 
to common sense, that the agreement of people and nations, which 
is St. Austin's first external mark of the true church, cannot ac- 
cording to his meaning, be appropriated to any but the church of 
Rome. 

I add, that even at this time, when so many churches are cut 
off from her by heresy and schism, her communion alone is more 
extended than any one, I might say than all the different reformed 
churches joined together, If the Catechist had but coolness of tem^ 
per enough to consider this one thing, he would perhaps have had 
more moderation than to treat such an illustrious body, as Roman 
Catholics have always been and continue to this day, in so out -a 
rageous a manner as to set forth the religion they profess in the 
scurrilous epithets, of a superstitious, idolatrous, damnable, bloody, 
traitorous, blind and blasphemous religion. Perhaps he imagined 
the filthier the dirt was he threw at Papists, and the thicker he 
heaped it upon them, the more it would please, I hope, however, 
he is mistaken in his aim. 

The second mark, viz. the evidence of miracles, belongs also in 
so peculiar a manner to the church of Rome, that no Protestant 
communion ever had the confidence to lay claim to it. On the 
contrary, most Protestants have thought it their best way to des- 
pise and ridicule miracles, just as the fox in the fable pretended the 
grapes were sour, when he could not come at them. 

But the third mark, viz. a perpetual succession of bishops and 
pastors derived from the apostles never was denied to the church 
of Rome by any man of learning. Nay, Protestant bishops and 
parsons lay no claim to any such succession but by the church of 
Rome. Because without the interposition of along catalogue of 
Popish bishops to make up their ecclesiastical pedigree, there is a 
gap of near one thousand live hundred years between the apostles 
and the first Protestant bishop or parson that ever was in the 



THE MATtKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 



world. However- even tliat will not render tliem any substantial 
service. For supposing the validity of their ordination, which, yet 
was never granted, unless they can also bring down their mission 
in a lineal descent from the apostles, and can shew that Protestants 
have within their own communion a continued succession of it from 
them (which is somewhat more than they ever pretended to,) their 
church will never be admitted into the apostolical family. 



Section Zfjf, 

OF CATHOLICITY^ 

Lastly, Catholicit) r , which is the fourth mark of the true church a 
insisted upon by St. Austin, and is professed in the creed as an es- 
sential part of her character, belongs to the church in communion, 
with the bishop of Rome by so unquestionable a title, that no her- 
etics (as St Justin observes) ever ha^ the confidence to dispute it 
with her in his time. Nor could any of the present reformed 
churches ever get the possession of it, though some of them have 
endeavoured with their utmost power. For truth and good sense 
have always prevailed in spite of all their efforts. Nay, go to what 
country you please, where there is a mixture of Roman Catholics 
and Protestants, we are as well known by the name of Catholics, 
as a spade is known by the name of spade. I know this to be true 
in Holland by my own experience, where, if a stranger asks a Pro- 
testant, where the Catholic church is, he will never direct him to 
his own church, but to some Popish chapel. Now if Papists bo 
truly Catholics, I am sure of two things : 1st, that the church in 
communion with the see of Rome is the church of Christ upon 
earth : and, 2dly, that she is the only true church upon earth. Or 
else the creed, which describes the true church of Christ to be One. 
arid Catholic, is false. 

But why cannot the reformed churches pretend^ to be Catholics, 
as well as the church of Rome ? I shall give the reason as briefly 
and as clearly as is possible. The word Catholic is derived from, 
the Greek, and signifies universal. Now there is a two-fold uni- 
versality belonging to the church of Christ : viz. universality of time, 
and universality of place, and therefore, no church can assume to 
herself the title of Catholic, unless she can shew that the faith she 
professes is universal both as to time and place. 

Here, then, let us us consider, whether (for example) the fakh 
of the church of England (as it differs from Popery) can be culled 
universal either as to time or place. The church's universality in 
respect of place must certainly be understood in a limited sense, of 



so 



OF CATHOLICITY. 



it will follow, that Christ never had a Catholic church upon earth : 
because there never yet was a time, wherein her communion was 
so universally received by the whole world, but that great nunir 
bers of heretics, and many heathen nations were out of it. Yet in 
scripture language she is stiled the church of all nations. Thus St. 
Paul. Col. i, 5, 6, says, the truth of the gospel is come to you, as it is 
in all the world. And so he applies to the apostles that of the 
psalmist, « their sound went into all the earth, and their words 
unto the end of the world. Rom. x. 18. The church of Christ is 
therefore called Catholic or universal, 1st, because she has been at 
all times since the apostles, the church of many nations, 2dly, be- 
cause she is the great body of christians, from which all went forth, 
And, 3diy, because she either has been, or will be in every nation, 
before the end of the world; that so all nations may be blessed in 
t the seed of Abraham, according to God's promise, Gen* xxii. 17, 18, 

This is the true meaning of the church's universality in respect of 
place. But her universality in respect of time is without limitation. 
That is, it suffices not that she be the church of many nges, as the 
Nestorians and Eutychians have been ever since the middle of the 
fifth century : but it imports, that she is the church of all ages, 
since the time of the apostles, and derived originally from them 
both as to her faith and cnmmunion. Whence it follows, that Ca- 
tholics, truly sq called, are the standing body of Christians through- 
out all ages, from which all Christian societies of heretics and 
schismatics have been cut off, as so many branches from the body of 
a tree, which continues standing and growing, whatever branches 
are lopped from it. 

Now let us see, whether the reformed church of England can 
make good her universality, either of time or place. Is she in the 
communion of that great body of Christians, from which all here^ 
tics and schismatics went forth ever since the time of the apostles : 
alas ! she herself broke off from it a little before the middle of the 
sixteenth century ! can she be stiled the church of all nations ? she, 
I say, who little more than one hundred and fifty years ago, was not 
the church of any one nation in the world ? has her faith, contained 
in the thirty-nine articles, been preached in France, Italy, Spain, 
Greece, &c, or any other nation under the sun, but what belongs 
to the crown of Great Britain ? no man is so weak as to say it has. 
It is then a plain case, she has no universality of place, even in the 
limited sense, in which I have explained it. 

Again, as to what we call universality of time (which as I have re- 
marked, comprehends all ages from the apostles down to us) she 
may as well pretend to have received the system of her whole faith 
and religion, by a continued succession of pastors (within the 
limits of her own communion) from Noah, as from the apostles. 
For now is it possible she should, since Popery was in possession of 
the whole kingdom for nine hundred years before the reformation? 
Nay, the book of Homilies declares, that whole Christendom was 



OF CATHOLICITY. 



drowned in Popery, during all that space of time. Where, then, was 
the Faith of the reformed church of England in all those ages ? by 
what external body or society of men was it possessed? I know the 
Catechist tells us, it was in the Bible doctrinally, and (in its fruits) 
in the hearts and lives of all good men. But I hope he has no reason 
to be proud of his answer. Finally, where was her succession or 
Protestant bishops for so many hundred years, before the Protest- 
ant religion had a being ? was she a Christian church, and yet in 
no part of Christendom ? for I am sure in Christendom she could 
not be, because all Christendom was over-run with Popery, even 
oar enemies being judges. The plain truth then of the matter is, 
she had no being at all before the sixteenth century : and she wants 
about one thousand five hundred years of universality of time. So 
that in effect, Protestants may as well stile themselves Antedilu- 
vians as call themselves Catholics. 

For what has been said it follows very plainly, that it is no error 
to hold, that the church in communion with the see of Rome, is the 
only true church. For the Catholic church cannot but be the true 
church, and if she be the true church, there can be no other true 
one, Eph. iv. 4, 5. 

If any one flies for refuge to an invisible church, (as I suspect 
the Catechist looks very wishfully that tvay, though he did not think 
fit to speak out,) I must conclude he is in great distress : and I ad- 
vise him as a friend, rather to give up the cause with a good grace, 
than to make such a trifling defence. For an invisible church is 
just what every body pleases. It may be the Fanatics' church, the 
Anabaptists' church, the Quakers' church, and every body's church, 
that will but lay claim to it : and he may trace it as easily to Noah, 
or Adam as to the apostles. But whosoever's church it is, I am 
very sure it is not the church of Christ, which is described in holy 
writ to be a " mountain upon the top of mountains, to which all 
nations will come, Isa. ii. 2. And in which there are always to be 
visible pastors. Eph. iv. 11, 12. and a visible administration of the 
word and sacraments, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. So that, if the script- 
ures be true, a perpetual visibility is an essential attribute of the 
church of Christ. And it follows from it. 1st. That no society 
of men can be the true church which has not had in its own com- 
munion a visible succession of bishops and pastors in every age from 
the apostles to us. And, 2dly, That Protestants, whether yon 
mean any onejbranch, or altogether, cannot be the true church of 
Christ, because they were no where visible for many hundred years. 
As St. Austin told the Donatists; you are not in the mountains 
of Sion, because you are not a city set upon a hill, which has this 
certain mark, that it cannot be hidden, Lib. contra literas 
Petil. c. 104. 



32 



«F THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS, 



ARTICLE VII. 

OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 

The seventh pretended error of Papists is, their praying to 
saints and angels, p. 12. 

ANSWER. 

We pray no otherwise to saints and angels than Protestants pray 
to one another, when they desire their friends to pray for them ; or, 
than St, Paul prayed to the Thessalonians, when he desired a share 
in their prayers, 1 Thess. v. 25, &c. So that the whole question 
between us and Protestants (if fairly stated) is precisely this, viz. 
whether it be not as lawful to desire the saints and angels in Heaven 
to pray for us, as it was for St. Paul to desire the Christians upon 
earth to pray for him ? 

However, our bold Catechist pronounces peremptorily, that pray- 
ing to saints and angels is a dangerous corruption of holy worship, 
and abominable in the sight of God, p. 12, and he proves it thus ; 
because it is absurd and ridiculous, ibid. Who will not admire the 
strength of this reason ? However let us see, whether the tling in 
question deserves the hard words, this gentleman gives it. 

First, it is, I think, an uncontested truth, that the doctrine and 
practice of invoking the saints and angels, was introduced into 
Great Britain, together with Christianity, and maintained in it 
witlioutjany change for nine hundred years before the reformation. 
If therefore it be true, what the Catechist tells us, that it is abo- 
minable in the sight of God, and absurd and ridiculous in itself, it 
follows, that all our British ancestors, among whom there were many 
eminent for piety and learning, were notwithstanding for so many 
ages, together not only fools and idiots, but w ! at is worse, lived 
and died in a damnable state: as being all guilty of a practice, which, 
according to our Catechist, is abominable in ti e sight of God. I 
hope, however, he will find but few rash enough to maintain such 
an extravagance. 

But 2dly, the practice is yet more ancient, I will not trouble the 
reader with quotations from the fathers, which are endless ; but 
only produce the testimony of some eminent Protestant writers, 
bearing witness to the truth of what I say. 

Dr. Fulk (in his rejoinder to Bristow, p. 5.) says, I confess that 
Ambrose, Austin, and Jerome, held it to be lawful. 

Chemnitius. a learned Lutheran, maintains, that the invocation 
of saints was brought into public assemblies about the year three 
hundred and seventy by St. Basil, St. Gregory Nyssen, and St. 
Gregory Nazianzen, in Exam. Cone. Trid. part 3, p. 200. 

To omit many others, Mr. Thorndike writes thus : " it is con- 



OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



33 



« fessed (pays he) that the lights both of the Greek and Latin 
" church, St. Bazil, St. Gregory, Nazianzen, St. Gregory, Nyssen, 
" St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril 
•« of Jerusalem, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Fulgen- 
" tius, St. Gregory the great, St. Leo, and more, rather all after 
" that time have spoken to the saints, and desired their assistance : 
" In Epil, part 3. p. 358." 

Now will the Catechist have the boldness to say that all these 
great and holy men both taught and practised a thing, that is abo- 
minable in the sight of God, and absurd and ridiculous in the judg- 
ment of men ? If he does, he must then maintain, that all these 
great lights and pillars of the church, whom the whole Christian 
world has ever held in veneration, both for their holiness and 
learning ; he must maintain r I say, that they were all abominable 
in the sight of God ; and that by consequence they were all damned; 
unless they retracted their doctrine before they died, which no man 
ever said they did. 

3dly, I take it to be a principle not only grounded on the word 
of God, but even granted by Protestants, that the angels and saints 
in Heaven pray for the church militant upon earth. I prove that 
it is grounded upon the word of God. 

1. From Zachary i. 12, where the angel prayed thus. "Then 
the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how 
long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Juda, 
against which thou hast had indignation these three score and ten 
years ?" 

2. From this maxim of St. Paul, viz. " that charity never ceas- 
eth f 1 Cor. xiii. 8. Nay, without dispute it not only remains, 
but is increased in Heaven. And therefore, if charity even in this 
world, obliges us to be solicitous, and pray for one another's salva- 
tion, surely the angels and saints in Heaven, whose charity sur- 
passes ours by many degrees, cannot fail of performing their part, 
in sending up their prayers to the throne of grace, for those who are 
yet combating in the warfare of this mortal life, and uncertain of 
their future state. 

3. From Psalm xci. 11, 12. "he shall give his angels charge 
over thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, 
lest thou dash thy foot against a stone," Now, surely, those 
heavenly spirits, whom God has appointed to take care of us, can- 
not be so unconcerned for the persons under their charge, as not 
to offer up their prayers for them. 

I prove, likewise, that it is a principle granted by Protestants. 

1. The bishop of Oxford, in his edition of St. Cyprian, p 291, 
writes thus : " we do not doubt (says he) but the saints in Heaven 
" pray earnestly to God, that he may shew his mercy to those that 
"live here." 

2. Mr. Thorndike discourses thus: all members of the Church 
triumphant in Heaven, according to their degree of favour with 



OP THE INVOCATION OT SAINTS. 



God, abound also with love to his church militant on earth. 
Therefore it is certain, both, that they offer up continual prayers to 
&od for its necessities, and that their prayers must be of great force 
and effect with God, for the assistance of the church militant in 
her warfare. Whence he infers, as I shall do immediately, " that 
*' the living ought to beg of God a part and interest in those pray- 
** ers, which they, who are so near to God in his kingdom, tender 
" to him without ceasing for the church upon earth. (Just Weights 
* ? and Measures.) c. 16. p 107* 

3c Bishop Montague writes thus i " I see no absurdity in na- 
" ture, nor incongruity as to the analogy of faith, no repugnance at 
" all to sacred scripture much less impiety for any man to say, holy 
** angel guardian pray for us. M (Treatise of Invocation of Saints 
P-97.) 

Lastly, the church of England has this collect upon the day of 
St. Michael and all angels. " O everlasting God, who has ordain- 
44 ed and Constituted the services of angels and men in a wonderful 
" order, mercifully grant, that as thy holy angels always do thee 
" service in Heaven, so by thy appointment they may succour and 
" defend us on earth, &c. Here the church of England prays for suc- 
cour and defence from the angels* And I presume one way the 
angels have of succouring us, is by their prayers ; which, by con- 
sequence, must likewise be granted of the saints ; for in this they 
are both upon the same parallel. 

Now from this principle, viz. that the angels and saints pray 
for the church militant upon earth, I infer, that it must certainly 
be good and profitable for every particular Christian to beg a share 
in their prayers. So that the whole question concerning the invo- 
caiion of saints and angels is fully decided by a principle not only 
grounded on the word of God, but agreed to by Protestants them- 
selves* 

Objections Answered. 

•Tell, let us hear, at least, what the Catechist has to say against 
; He tells us, first, that we cannot be sure they are real saints 
to whom we pray. With his good leave we may have a moral cer- 
tainty or a prudent conviction of it, which suffices. But he adds, 
that the Pope has cannonized many wicked men ; to which I return 
this short answer, that it must be a very bad cause, which cannot 
be supported without slander. 

He tells us, 2dly, that to pray to saints is idolatrous. I answer, 
I. then all those "great and holy men of the primitive ages just 
reckoned up by Mr. Thorndike were idolaters; which is 
strange news indeed ; but it wants confirmation. I answer, 2. If 
desiring a part in the prayers of saints in Heaven be idolatrous, 
ts of sinful men upon earth, is still a worse 
. And so ail members of the church of England, 



OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



35 



who recommend themselves to one another's prayers, are guilty of 
a grosser idolatry than what Papists are accused of 

He tells us, 3dly, that it has no warrant from the word of God, 
but is forbidden. For which he quotes this text, " him only shalt 
thou serve," Matt. iv. 10. Here the poor gentleman is so hard 
put to it for a text, that I am really in pain for him. For is not 
this a most admirable consequence, Christ said to Satan, "him 
only shalt thou serve," therefore the scripture forbids us to desire 
the prayers of saints and angels ! I shall make bold to infer ano- 
ther consequence full as good, viz. Therefore the scripture forbids 
us to desire the prayers of one another. But a man must have very- 
bad eyes, who can see no difference between begging a share in a 
man's prayers, and paying divine worship to him, 

As to what he says, that we have no warrant from the word of 
God for it, I have already shewed the contrary. However I 
should be glad to know, what warrant the Church of England has 
from the word of God for keeping one holyday for all the saints in, 
general, and another for St. Michael and all the angels ? 

He tells us, 4thly, that the angels refuse to be prayed to, and 
for this he quotes, Rev, xxii. 9« But this text has no more rela- 
tion to the subject in question, than to the building of the tower 
pf Babel, 

He tells us, 5thly, that the saints cannot hear out prayers: for 
which he quotes Isaias saying, " Abraham is ignorant of us," Isa- 
Ixiii. 16. But how this text is put upon the rack to make it speak 
in favour of a blunder I for in the days of Isaias there were no 
saints in Heaven ; because mankind was not yet redeemed. I answer 
therefore that the. true meaning of Isaias (according to St. J erome) 
is, that Abraham will not own wicked Israelites to be his children, 
Jer. in C. 63- Isa. in which our Saviour will say to the reprobate, 
"verily, I know you not," Matt. xxv. 12. 

I answer again, that it is blasphemy to say, that God cannot 
make our prayers known to the saints, so is it a groundless and 
precarious guess to say he does not do it. For why should the 
saints be kept in ignorance of what passes in this world any more 
than the angels ? of whom it is said, " that they rejoice over a sin- 
ner that repenteth, Luke xv. 7, which therefore they must cer- 
tainly know. 

Lastly, he tells us, it is injurious to the meditation of Christ : 
for which he quotes 1 Tim. ii. 5. " There is one God, and one 
mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." And 
again, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ the righteous." 1 John ji. 1. But does not the Catechist 
see, that if desiring the prayers of saints be injurious to the me- 
^iatorship of Christ, then St, Paul was injurious to it, when he 
desired so often the prayers of his friends ? Every one, therefore, 
that is but well instructed in his catechism, knows, that though 
there is but one mediator of redemption (of which St. Paul speaks 



36 



OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



in the text quoted) yet all that pray for us, may improperly be 
called mediators of prayer or intercession. I say improperly ; be- 
cause there is only one (to wit, Jesus Christ,) who can have im- 
mediate access to God for us, whether saints in heaven, or men 
upon earth, must see the mediation of Christ, when they offer their 
prayers to God ; which fully answers the text from St. John. 

Hence bishop Montague made no difficulty to write thus. ' 1 do 

* not deny, (says he) but the saints are mediators, as they call them, 
' of prayer and intercession. They interpose with God by their 
' supplications, and mediate by their "prayers ;' in Aatid. p. 20. 
And again, in his Treatise of Invoc. p. 118, he writes thus: * I 

* own Christ is not wronged in his mediation : it is no impiety to 

* say, (as Papists do) holy Mary pray for us.' 

But if any one asks, what need there is to desire the saints to 
pray for us, since Christ's mediation is all-sufficient ? I answer, it 
may as well be asked, what need there is to pray ourselves, or for 
one another ? but as the satisfaction of Christ, though all-sufficient, 
must be applied to us by prayer and good works, so likewise his 
mediation. In effect, whatever we beg of God, or others beg for 
us, we only hope to obtain it through the mediation of Jesus Christ : 
and the true reason that moves us to desire the saints to pray for us, 
is the very same that moved St. Paul to desire the prayers of his 
absent friends, viz. that God may have the honour, and we the 
profit of more prayers than our own. 

In a word, it is impossible to give a solid reason, why desiring 
the prayers of the saints in heaven, is more injurious to Christ's 
mediatorship, than the prayers of men upon earth ? and I insist 
upon it as a thing manifest to common sense, that either both are 
lawful or both unlawful. If both be unlawful, then Protestants are 
as guilty as Papists. But if both be lawful, then they, who seduce 
the people by persuading them that our invocation of saints is both 
idolatrous, and injurious to Christ's mediatorship, are guilty of a 
most grievous injustice, which they never can answer either to God 
or man. 

I will end this subject with an objection, which I should really 
blush to answer seriously, were it not that I have found by ex- 
perience, that the generality of women and chil lren are wonder- 
fully effected with it. The objection is grounded upon these words 
of Christ, come unto me all ye that labour and are- heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest," Matt. xi. 28. Whence they conclude, 
that since Christ commands all to come to him, it is unlawful to 
have recourse to the prayers of saints and angels. This is the 
wretched argument with which so many are misled ! 

I answer therefore, that the heart of a Christian in all its prayer 
speaks to God, and expects no blessings from him but through 
Jesus Christ. Nay, the very essence of prayer is a raising up of 
the heart and mind to God. We are then so far from violating the 
command of Christ, by desiring to have the prayers of his saints 



OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



37 



joined with ours, that we may not only come to God ourselves, but 
wish that many more may do the same with us. 

Besides, if desiring the saints to pray for us, be contrary to the 
command of Christ, by desiring the faithful to pray for us, is no 
less contrary to it ? and therefore, as it would be absurd to charge 
Protestants with a breach of Christ's command, for desiring their 
friends to pray for them, so it is no less absurd to charge us with a 
breach of Christ's command, for desiring the saints to pray for us. 



ARTICLE VIII. 

OF TItANSUBSTANTIATION. 

The eiyhlh pretended error of Papists is, Transub* 
stantiation, p. 23, 

ANSWER. 

By transubstantiation, as it regards the sacrament of the Holy 
Eucharist, we mean nothing else but the change of the bread and 
wine into the true and real body and blood of Christ, made by the 
words of consecration. But we deny this to be an error ; nay, no^ 
thing is more evident, than that is the doctrine of the ancient fa- 
thers. I shall only quote a few out of many to avoid being tedious. 

First, St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, writes thus : " since there- 
fore Christ himself does thus affirm and say of the bread, < this is 
my body,' who from henceforward dares he so bold as to doubt of 
it ? And since the same does assure us and say, i this is my 
blood,' who, I say, can doubt of it, and say it is not his blood ? 
In Cana of Galilee, he once with his sole will turned water into 
wine, which much resembles blood, and does he not deserve to 
be believed, that he changed wine into blood." — Catec. Myst. 

2dly, St. Gregory, Nyssen, writes thus : "I do therefore now 
rightly believe, that the bread sanctified by the word of God is 
changed into the body of God the Word." And again soon af- 
ter, here (says he) likewise the bread (as the apostle says) < is 
sanctified by the word of God and prayer.' Not so, that by be-, 
ing eaten it becomes the body of the Word, but because it is 
suddenly changed into his body by this word, 1 this is my body' — - 
And this is effected by the virtue of benediction, by which the 
nature of those things, which appear, are transelemented into it/' 
[In orat Catech. C. 37. T. 3. Edit. Par.] 

3dly, St. Chrysostom sets forth this truth in the following 
manner : [Horn. 38. in Matt.'] " let us always (says he) believe 
God, and not contradict him, though that which he says seems to 
contradict both our thoughts, and our senses. — For his word can- 
not deceive us, but our senses may easily be deceived. He never 



33 



OF TRAXSUBSTANTIATION. 



errs, but we are often mistaken. Since therefore he says, ' this is 
my body,' let us be fully persuaded of it." 

And in the same Homily he writes thms : " the things we pro- 
pose are not done by human power. He that wrought these 
tilings at his last supper, is the author of what is done here. We 
hold but the place of ministers ; but he that sanctifies and changes 
them is Christ himself/' 

I appeal here to the judgment and sincerity of any unbiassed 
reader, whether these three Greek fathers do not deliver the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, as clearly and strongly as any Roman 
Catholics can now do. I omit a multitude of quotations of the 
same force, and will only add one from St Ambrose, a Latin fa- 
ther, to shew the unanimous agreement of antiquity in this doctri- 
nal point, His words are remarkably plain. 

4thly, " Perhaps, (says he) you may teil me I see another thing 
■ — I must therefore prove that what you receive is not that, which 
nature framed, but that, which the benediction has consecrated ; 
and that the benediction has a greater force than nature. Moses 
held a rod in his hand, he threw it down, and it was made a ser- 
pent. Again, he took hold of th,e serpent, and it returned into 
the nature of a rod. The rivers of Egypt ran with streams of 
pure water, when, presently blood gushed forth out of the. foun- 
tain-vein, there was no water in, the rivers. And again by the 
prayer of Moses the blood ceased, and. the nature of waters re- 
turned." To these he adds other miracles : as, that when Moses 
held up his rod the sea opened a passage for the Israelites : that 
Jordan ran back : that Moses brought water out of the rock by 
striking it : and, that Elias made Iron swim upon the. water, con- 
trary to its nature. Then he goes en thus : 

"We see therefore that grace is stronger than nature. Now if 
a man's blessing could change, the course of nature, what do we 
think of the divine consecration itself, in which the very words 
of our Saviour operates ? for the. sacrament which you received is 
made by the words of Christ. And if Elias's words were able to 
draw fire from Heaven, will not the words of Christ be able to 
change, the nature of the elements ? " He said and they were 
made, he commanded and they were, created," Psalm cxliii. 5. 
Is not then the word of Christ, tvhich could give a being; to that 
which had none, able to change those things which are, into 
what they were not before ? for it is not less to give new na- 
tures to things, than to change their natures." Lab, de irdtiatis. 

Thus the ancient fathers give testimony for the doctrine, of tran- 
substantiation, and are authentic witnesses that it was the public 
faith of the church in her purest times. For they never were ac- 
cused of any error against faith, which censure they could not 
have escaped, had they been guilty of broaching any doctrine con- 
trary to the known faith of the universal church. Whence it is 
plain, that they taught no other doctrine, than what they had re- 



OF TR A"N9L"BST ANTIATION. 



39 



eeived by a constant tradition from the apostles. For otherwise 
they would undoubtedly have been publicly censured for introdu- 
cing novelties into the church, and that in a matter of such im- 
portance. 

SECT, it 

Transubstantiation proved from Scriptures* 

The Catechist having put the question, what scripture we 
alledge for this doctrine ? answers it for us, that we alledge the 
words of Christ John vi. £0, 51, &c. Very right, for our Sa- 
viour says there expressly, " that bread which 1 give is my flesh," 
51. And " my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed 
55. Which words contain a promise or prediction of the divine 
legacy he intended to bequeath to his apostles and the whole 
church at his last supper. 

But with the Catechist's good leave, besides this text we have 
also other convincing proofs. As 1st, the words of St. Paul, 
" the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of 
the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break is it not the com- 
munion of the body of Christ ?" 2dly, the words of the institution* 
viz. " this is my body, this is my blood which manifestly imply 
a change of the bread and wine into his body and blood : pro- 
vided we will but allow that Christ spoke truth, and did not ex- 
press himself absurdly. 

To proceed gradually, I shall first prove, that they imply a real 
and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood. For after 
that we need but have recourse to the good common sense to infer 
the doctrine of transubstantiation. 

That they import a real and substantial presence, I prove flrstr 
because all propositions like these, this is bread : this is a man, 
&c. (unless you speak' of pictures, or resemblances, which is not 
the present case) are in all common discourse as currently under- 
stood of the reality and substance of the things specified, as if the 
words really and substantially were added. Nay a man would be 
laughed at for a formal cautious coxcomb, if pointiug to a loaf of 
bread he should say, this is bread really and substantially : or, 
coming from court (for example,) he should tell me he had seen the 
king really and substantially. Because there is no difference be- 
tween a thing, and its reality and substance. In like manner, 
therefore, when Christ said, " this is my body," he declared as 
effectually that it was the reality or substance of his body, as if he 
had expressed it in the most formal terms, this is the common lan- 
guage of mankind. All wise men speak so, and all wise men un- 
derstand it so. And if any man should pretend to mean otherwise, 
he would deservedly pass for a notorious equivocator, that says one 
thing and means another. 



40 



OF THAXSUBSTANTIATION. 



I prove it, 2dly, if Christ gave not his real body, but a morsel 
of bread to his apostles when he said, "take and eat, this is my 
body," then it follows that he called a morsel of bread his body; 
which cannot be maintained without making Christ guilty of a down- 
right absurdity. For nothing can be more absurd, than to hold a 
morsel of common bread in a man's hands, and pointing to it say, 
this is the living body of a man ; it being contrary to the common 
practice of mankind and the common laws of speech, to call one by 
the name of another, with which it has no manner of resemblance, 
or connection ; and that too, without giving the persons to whom, 
it is spoken, the least intimation to serve as a key to let them into 
the true meaning of such an extraordinary and unheard-of manner 
of speech. 

I prove it, 3dly, a sober man would be ashamed on any serious 
occasion to use a deceitful way of speaking, so as to call a thing by 
a name it was never known of before. As, for example, to take up 
a piece of brick and say, this is a diamond. It is therefore incredi- 
ble that Christ, who could say nothing unbecoming himself, should . 
Use this deceitful way of speaking in the most solemn action of 
his life ; when he was fulfilling the types and figures of the old 
law, declaring his last will and testament, and bequeathing a sacred 
legacy to his church for ever. 

Lastly, I prove it from the doctrine of the church of England, as 
it is delivered in her own church-catechism, which is printed in all 
books of common prayer, and has the whole authority of that church 
to recommend it. Now, in this catechism, to the question, " what 
is the inward part or thing signified ? ' it is answered, " the body 
and blood of Christ, which is verily and indeed taken and received 
by the faithful in the Lord's supper." 

This, then, is the doctrine of the church of England, which ex- 
presses the real and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood 
in the sacrament as fully as any Papist can do : for if verily and 
indeed be not the same as really and truly, and of fall force to ex- 
clude a mere figurative presence, I confess I am yet wholly ignor- 
ant of the signification even of the most ordinary words ; and it 
will be impossible to know what men mean, even when they deliver 
themselves in the plainest terms. So that it must either be owned, 
that the words of Christ's institution import a real and substantial 
presence of his body and blood, even according to Protestant doc- 
trine, or we must suppose the church of England guilty of a most 
scandalous equivocation in so serious a matter ; and say, she only 
makes use of the words verily and indeed to impose upon ignorant 
people, and make plain bread and wine go down the better. 

Now, to come to the principal point in question, I leave it to 
common sense to decide, whether there must not be a change of 
the bread and wine, if the words of Christ s institution import a 
real and substantial presence of his body and blood ? for if this be 
granted^ they either must be changed, or they must remain together 



OF T R A NS UBST AX TTATT OX. 



41 



with his body ami blood, as Lutherans hold ; but this is certainly 
inconsistent with the obvious meaning of the words of Christ — 
I prove it thus. If Christ, taking the bread into his hands, had 
said, here is my body, I own it. would not be inconsistent with the 
obvious meaning of his words, to say that the bread and body of 
Christ are joined together in the sacrament ? but Christ did not 
say, here is my body, but, this is my body, which nothing but a 
substantia] change of the bread into his body can make really and 
literally ferae. Because the word, this, points precisely at what the 
apostles saw ; which if it continued bread after, as it was before 
the words of consecration, the proposition was absolutely false : be- 
cause the sense of it then was, that the bread he gave to his apos- 
tles was his body, which implies a contradiction; and if as impos- 
sible as that any two substances remaining different should be the 
same. 

But let lis now see what the Cateehist sets down for Protestant 
doctrine, p. 23. He reduces it to three heads. 1. That Christ 
blessed the bread and wine therefore did not destroy it. What 
trifling stuff is tiiis ! what, if Christ blessed the water at Cana, in 
Galilee, and with Ins blessing changed it into wine, does it follow 
from thence, that the water still remained ? 

2. He would have us believe, there is nothing in the sacrament, 
but bread and wine, 1 answer, this may be Zuinglian Protestancy, 
but it is not, the Protestancy of the church of England, whose Cat- 
echism (which surely is a Protestant one) teaches positively, that 
the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re- 
ceived by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. 

3. That the apostle himself does no less than thrice call it 
bread and wine after the consecration, 1 Cor. xi. 2(5. 27- 28. To 
which I answer, that nothing is more common even in familiar dis- 
course, than to call a tiling by the name of that, out of which it is 
made, or from which it is changed. Thus it was said to Adam, 
Gen. iii. 1.9. "dust thou art :" because though then a living man, 
he had been made of dust. In like manner the serpent, that w as 
made by a substantial change from Aron's rod, is still called a rod 
in scripture, because changed from it : '* they cast down every man 
his rod, and they became serpents ; but Aroifs rod swallowed up 
their rods," Exod. vii. 1 2. Again, nothing, is more familiar thaii 
to name things from the -appearance which they have to our senses. 
The scripture itself says, "beheld there stood a man over against 
him," Jos. v. 13. Yet in the same place we are told he was not 
really a man, but the 'captain of the Lord's host,' that is, an angel. 
So St. Mark assures us, that the women ' entering into the sepul- 
chre saw a young man.' xvi. 5. But he had only the name, be - 
cause he appeared so. For he was not really a young man, 
but an angel : Matt, xxviii. 5. Thus also is the common way of 
shaking to say, I saw a dead man exposed, though it be not then, 
a man, but a mere carcass. In like manner, therefore, the body 

G 



42 



OF TPvANSVBSTANTIATION. 



of Christ in the sacrament is by a proper and familiar figure called 
bread by St. Paul, because it is changed from bread, has to our 
senses the likeness of bread, and nourishes the soul as bread nour* 
ishes the body. If you ask what this consecrated bread is ? our 
Saviour tells you ; John vL 5L "the bread that I will give is my 
flesh." St. Paul tells you, 1 Cor. x. 16. " it is the communion of 
the body of Christ." Nay, we ourselves call it the holy bread of 
eternal life in the Mass after consecration ; yet I hope nobody 
will infer from thence, that we do not believe transubstantiation. 



SECT. III. 

Objections Answered, 

But here the Catechist adds three reasons more against transub- 
etantiation. 1. Because (says he) it takes away the great evi- 
dence of the first witnesses of Christianity. That is, if it be not 
true bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ, which we 
receive in the sacrament, it follows that our senses are deceived ; 
and by consequence the apostles could not be sure they saw Christ 
work any miracles, which takes away the great evidence of Chris- 
tianity. 

This objection, so highly magnified by some of our adversaries, 
must either suppose, that we must never trust our eyes or any of our 
senses, unless we may always trust them : or that our senses must 
always be trusted, when they give us jointly the best information 
they are capable of. The first of these suppositions is contrary 
both to reason and religion, nay even to experience, and to our 
senses themselves. For all these correct the errors of sense, if I 
may be allowed that way of speaking. The sun appears to our 
eyes scarce bigger than a span, and the fixed stars a great deal 
less. But reason tells us they may be greater than the earth. A 
straight stick, if you put the end of it under water, will appear 
crooked. But take it out, and your eyes will discover their own 
mistake. The two disciples going to Emmaus had Jesus in their 
company, they both heard him and saw him ; yet took him for 
another, because "their eyes were held, that they should not know 
him," Luke xxiv. 16. At length even by their senses they found 
they had been mis-informed ; for soon after " their eyes were open- 
ed, and they knew him ;" 31. but because their sight had deceived 
them on this occasion, were they never to trust to it any more ? 
were they not to believe that they had seen any miracles of Christ ? 
St. Mary Magdalen, was deceived in the same manner ; she saw 
Jesus, yet knew not that it was he, and supposed him to be the 
gardener, John xx. 14, 15. But she was not to believe her eyes 
when she fell at his feet ? Matt, xxviii. 9. when she " told the 



OF TIIAXSTTBSTANTTATIOK'. 



43 



disciples that she had seen the Lord?" Joknxx. 18. when she 
saw him nailed to the cross, Mutt, xxvii. 55. and laid in the 
tomb ? 61. 

The second supposition, to wit, that our senses must always be 
trusted, is equally false. For 1 st, the two disciples going to Em- 
maus had the joint information both of their eyes and ears ; yet I 
hope they might be sure and faithful witnesses of Christ's miracles. 

2dly, Joshua's eyes deceived him when he said to the angel, " art 
thou for us or for our adversaries ?" Jos. v. 13. And all his senses 
might then havebeen under the samemistake. But was he not to trust 
his eyes, when he saw the sun stand still, the w alls of Jericho tum- 
ble down, the \vaters of Jordan rise up in heaps, and so many 
other miracles done both by Moses and himself? 

3dly, When St. Peter was rescued out of prison, he " knew for 
certain that God had sent his angel, and had delivered him out of 
the hands of Herod Afits xii. 1 1. Here then is a fact, in which 
he bjpth believed and disbelieved the information of his senses — 
Had he believed them as to the person of his guide (whom he saw, 
heard, and felt, when he struck him on the side) he must have 
judged him to be a man, not an angel. In this then he found his 
senses, were mistaken. Yet he still believed his eyes, and had no- 
thing but his eyes to trust to that he saw two miracles wrought in 
his favour, viz. the falling off of his chains, and the iron gates open- 
ing of its own accord. 

4thly, If God had said to the holy women as they went to the 
sepulchre, " you shall meet one there, who to all your senses will 
appear to be a man and yet is none :" or to the apostles before the 
last supper. " You shall eat and drink that which will seem to be 
bread and wine but in reality is not so ;" would it follow, that if 
they had believed him they must haye renounced the use of their 
senses for ever ? To say that God is not to be believed, is blas- 
phemy. And to say, that if they believe him in this, they must re- 
nounce their senses in all other matters, is madness. 

It is therefore false, that without believing in every thing, when 
they give us the best information they can, we must believe them 
in nothing. It is false to say, that if we do not judge of bread and 
wine in the sacrament by the information of- our senses, the apos- 
tles could not be, sure they ever saw Christ work any miracles, or 
that the sensible grounds of Christianity are shaken. For God 
having given us senses to direct our judgment, we ought to rely on 
their information, unless either our senses themselves, or reason or 
faith correct their mistake. And if reason may ever be allowed t© 
over-rule their mis-information, we cannot surely refuse to pay the 
same deference to the revelation of God, when it tells us that such 
or such a thing is what it appears to be to our senses. In fine, 
since we have so many instances of this in the scripture ; as it is 
ridiculous to. say, we must believe our senses in nothing, so it is 
impious to say we must believe them in every thing. 



44 



OF THE SACRIFICE OT THE MAPS. 



The Cateehist's second reason is, that Christ said, "this is my 
body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me," I 
Cor. xi. 24. I answer, that the first part is explained by St. Paul's 
disciple, St. Luke, xxii. 19- " This is my body which is given for 
you.'' The Latin version has it ; " this is my body, which shall be 
given for you." But the sense is the same. The second part only 
proves, that the sacrament is a memorial of Christ's death and pas- 
sion : which is undoubtedly true. 

His third reason against transubstantiation is, "because it will 
not allow men the privilege of beasts, to judge by their senses of 
seeing, smelling, tasting, &c. I answer, it will not allow men the 
privilege of Atheists to trust their senses rather than the express 
word of God. But enough has been said of this, 



ARTICLE IX, 

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, 

The ninth pretended error of the Papists is, the doctrine 
of the Mass. 

A N S W E R. 

By the word Mass we understand the sacrifice of the body and 
blood of Christ offered to God in an unbloody manner by the hands 
of the priests ; or what amounts to the same, an external oblation 
made to God of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of 
bread and wine. Now it is manifest by the most ancient records 
of Christianity, by innumerable testimonies of the holy fathers ever 
since the time of the apostles ; by the ancient liturgies of all na- 
tions, Latins, Greeks, Nestorians, Arminians, Ethiopians, Cophtes, 
Goths, &c. and even by the confession of Protestants themselves, 
(for which you may see Dr. Field, JB. 3. of the church, ch. 19- p» 
107.) that the Holy Eucharist has always been used in the church, 
not only as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice instituted by Christ 
at his last supper. For proof whereof the ancient Greek and La- 
tin fathers, St. Justin and St. Irenaeus in the second age, St. 
Chrysostom and St. Augustin in the fourth, alledge the words of 
God in the prophet Malachy as they read them : " from the ris- 
ing of the sun to the going down of it, my name is great among 
the gentiles, and in every place is sacrificed and offered to my 
name a clean oblation," Mai. i. 11. 

For a farther proof of it these words of the psalmist, ' thou art 
a priest for ever according to the order of Meleliisedech,' Psalm. 
x«. 4. are urged by St. Cyprian in the third age : St. Jerom, St. 
EpiphaniiLs, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustin in the fourth, and 



OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



4.5 



by St. Isidore, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret in the 
fifth. For as they argue, priests of the order of Aaron sacrificed 
beasts; but Melchisedech's sacrifice was 'bread and wine,' Gen. 
Xiyf. 18. a figure <>f the Holy Eucharist, by the daily offer- 
ing whereof and the fruits of hi,s passion Christ is a priest for 
ever, 

St. Cyprian calls the blessed Eucharist a ? true and full sacrifice,' 
Epist. 63. St. August in, a 4 true and sovereign sacrilice/ 1. 10.de 
(■ir. Meit c. 2«>. Kusebius, 4 an expiation for all the world,' 1.1. 
Dem. M&- e. 10. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, ' a spiritual sacrilice, an 
unbloody worship, a propitiatory victim/ Cat Mt/st. 5. 

But there needs no other proof than what the church of 
England herself teaches. For if the body and blood of Christ be 
verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, and conse- 
quently by the priest, it must of necessity follow that the priest 
offers them up verily and indeed upon the altar, and that they are 
an oblation of mercy. For how: can Jesus Christ be unacceptable 
to his Father ? or how can the fruits of his passion be applied 
more effectually than by his own self-offering ? 

Nor is the very name of Mass an invention of latter ages — . 
For thus the Holy sacrifice of the altar was called above thirteen 
hundred years ago. Witness first, St. Ambrose, who writes thus : 
f I continued the office, I began to say Mass/ &e. L. 2. Epist. 14. 
And 2dly, St, Leo whose words are remarkable : ' when the mul- 
titude (says he) is so great, that the church cannot hold them all, 
let there be no difficulty made to, offer the sacrifice often er than 
once. For some part of the people must of necessity be deprived 
of their devotion, if following the custom of saying Mass but once, 
none can offer up the sacrilice but they who come early in the 
morning.' St. Leo, Epist. 11. (olim. 81.) ad Jjioseorum. 

Here we have the sacrifice of the Eucharist plainly spoken of, 
and called by the verj> name of ?vlass first, by St. Ambrose, a fa- 
ther of the fourth age, and 2dly, by St, Leo, who lived in the fifth, 
and I never heard thqy were the first to give it that name. But 
let that be as it will, can our adversaries reflect without some un- 
easiness of thought, that it is but about a hundred and fifty years 
ago, when by the sole authority of a secular tribunal it was made 
high treason in this nation for Christians to perform that very 
devotion, which was the most solemn worship of God in those ages 
(when the church's faith was uncorrupted according to their own 
concession) and which they had received from the apostles them-? 
selves. .. . 

I add moreover that the church of England is one of the first 
churches since the creation, that pretended to true priests and al- 
tars without, an external sacrifice, this being in reality nothing less 
than a solecism in religion: because a priest is properly one, whose 
office it is to offer sacrilice, and the altar is the place on which 
it is offered. 



46 



OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



Objections Answered. 

Le£ us now see wjiat the Catechist has to say against it. He 
tays it is a vain and idolatrous thing. Why ? because (says he) 
*s by Christ's sacrifice God is sufficiently satisfied, and the repent- 
ing sinner fully secured for which he quotes the following text ; 
w this man after he had offered one sacrifice for us for ever sat 
down at the right hand of God," Heb. x. 12. I answer, that if 
this argument proves any thing, it proves likewise that both 
Christ's mediation for us in Heaven, and the sacraments he has 
provided for us on earth are also useless. Because God is suffi- 
ciently satisfied, and our ransom is fully paid by Christ's sacrifice 
offered on the cross, Nay, prayer, alms, fasting, self-denials, keep- 
ing the commandments, and repentance itself, may all he thrown 
into the list of vain and idle things. But if all these be both pro- 
fitable and necessary, because they are ordained by God as means 
to apply to us the fruits of that bloody sacrifice, by which alone we 
are redeemed and the divine, justice is fully satisfied, then surely 
Christ's offering himself daily on the altar for the self same end, 
cannot without blasphemy be called either vain o" idolatrous. In- 
deed we must live, in a very unchristian age, wherein worshiping 
Christ is idolatry. 

It is true, he offered himself but once a bloody sacrifice for us, 
but since he can but once pay the ransom which God demanded : 
and it is of this sacrifice of redemption St. Paul speaks in the 
whole chapter quoted by the Catechist. Because he is our high 
priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedeeh, he offers 
himself daily for us in an unbloody manner; not to redeem us 
again, but to apply by this as by other, means appointed by him 
the price of our redemption, 

But (says the Catechist) if Christ sits for ever at the right hand 
of God, how can he he truly present upon our altars ? I answer, in 
the very same manner as his body and blood are verily and indeed 
taken by the faithful in the Lord's supper. But let St. Chrysos- 
tom teach him his lesson, " we always offer (says he) the same 
Christ. " Therefore the sacrifice is the same. Are there many 
Christs, because he is offered in many places ?. no, Christ is every 
where the same. He is entire here, and entire there, and has but 
one body ; as therefore his body is the same, though offered up, in 
different places, so the sacrifice is the same. He is our high priest, 
who offered that victim which cleanses us. We now offer the. same, 
which was offered then, and which cannot be consumed." Horn. 17, 
in Epist. ad Heb. 

If he asks me whether I pretend to understand, how the same 
body can be. in different places at once ; and if not, whether my re- 
ligion be not a very blind one ? I answer, first,, when he has ex- 
plained the six following questions, he shall have full satisfac- 
tion. The first query is, how two bodies could be at once in the 



OF THE SACBIFICE OF THE MASS. 



47 



very same place by penetration, when Christ came to his disciples 
* the doors being shut P John xx. 19. The second is, how his body 
and blood can be present verily and indeed to one thousand faith- 
ful Christians receiving them at the same time in different places ? 
The third is, how the same person can be both God and man ?— * 
The fourth is, how there can be three divine persons, and only one 
God ? The fifth is, how God could make all times and places, be- 
fore there was either place or time to make them in ? The sixth is, 
whether a man's soul be at the same time in distant parts and dis- 
tant places, as in the right hand and in the left ? and whether the 
soul meets itself, and is separated from itself, when a man joins and 
parts his hands, &c Again, whether part of the soul be not bit off 
and eaten, if a furious dog should snap a man s hand off and eat it ? 
when, I say, he has given a clear and satisfactory answer to these 
few questions, there will be no difficulty in answeri. % both the 
question now proposed, and some other very curious on 3 proposed 
by him, p. 43, 44. 

I answer, 2dly, if it be blindness to believe what we do not fully 
understand, we must necessarily renounce the most material part 
of the creed. But there is a large difference between understand- 
the mysteries we believe, and knowing the reasons why we believe 
them. To believe without reason is blindness : but to believe 
things, that are above our understanding, is the very nature and 
essence of Christian faith. 



ARTICLE X. 

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KINTh 

The tenth pretended error of Papists is, their denying the use of 
the cup to the people in the sacrament, to which he adds, that ev- 
ery c&mmunicant has an undeniable right to the blessed cup in 
the Lord's supper^ p. 24. 

ANSWER. 

If the Catechist means that every communicant has an undeni- 
able right to receive Christ's sacred blood as well as his body, I 
heartily subscribe to it, and assure him that no Catholic communi- 
cant ever was deprived of it. But how will he excuse those Pro- 
testants, who, by denying the real presence of Christ's body and 
blood in the sacrament deprive the faithful of both, yet clamour so 
loud against us as if our laity were wronged in the highest degree ? 
w r hat end can they have in this, but to amuse the people with the 
pleasing fancy of receiving mighty things more than Papists do ? 
when indeed they are sent away with a sup of wine to their bread, 



4b OP COMMUNIOX IN OXE KINT>. 

and with mere empty types and figures instead of the sacred 
body and blood which Christ beqeathed to them at his last sup- 
per. 

I therefore desire the reader to take notice here, that if he does 
not believe, that Christ's body and blood are received verily and 
indeed, that is really and truly in the Lord's supper, lie is not at 
all concerned in the subject of this article : and ail f can do for him 
is to pray God that he will open his eyes to see, and touch his 
heart to acknowledge a truth so fully and clearly attested in his 
sacred word. But -if lie believes that Christ's body and blood are 
received verily and indeed, that is really and truly in the Lord s 
supper, I will demonstrate to him, that communion in one kind de- 
serves nothing of the bitter invectives usually made against it by 
our Protestant adversaries. Their loud clamours, though altoge- 
ther unreasonable, are coloured with these two specious and po- 
pular pretences, to wit, 1. that communion in one kind defrauds 
the laity of the sacred blood of Christ. And 2. that it is con- 
trary to his institution and express command. Now if there were 
any solid ground for either of these objections, I should frankly 
own the unlawfulness of our practice : but I shall shew as brief- 
ly as is possible, that they are wholly groundless, and by con- 
sequence extremely injurious to us. 

SECT. I. 

Communion in one kind does not defraud the laity of the sacred 
blood of Christ. 

First then let. us see, whether the laity be defrauded of any thing 
by receiving the sacrament in one kind only. But what is it 
they are defrauded of? is the body of Christ without his blood 
in the Host. ? or the blood of Christ without his body in the 
Cup ? no Christian is surely capable of entertaining such an ex- 
travagant and impious imagination. For if the blood of Christ 
be really separated from his body upon the altar, then the sa- 
cred victim is slain, and Christ dies as really on the altar, as 
he did on the cross : which is a flat contradiction to this max- 
im of St. Paul, viz. " that Christ rising from the dead dieth no 
more," Mom. vi. 9- And indeed how r is it possible, that Christ 
whose sacred humanity is now all-glorious, impassible, and im- 
mortal, should be still subject to death ? or, (which amounts to 
the same) capable of having his blood really and truly separated 
from his body. 

But, as one absurdity is usually the source of many more, if 
the people by receiving the sacrament in one kind were defrauded 
of the blood of Christ, it w r ould likewise follow, that instead of 
receiving the living body of Christ they receive a dead carcass ; 
and they who drink the cup, would drink dead and inanimate 



OP COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 



40 



blood ; nay, in receiving the sacrament in both kinds, they won"!* 
receive one half of Christ under the form of bread, and the other 
half under the form of wine : which if it be not most eminently im- 
pious and absurd, I know not what is. 

Hence it plainly follows that whole Christ is received in either 
kinds ; and I argue thus from it, Whoever receives whole Christ is 
not defrauded of his sacred blood ; but they who receive the sacra- 
ment in one kind only receive whole Christ, therefore they are not 
defrauded of his sacred blood ; and by conseqehce we are falsely ac- 
cused by our adversaries of giving to the laity a mangled sacrament. 

But is not the cup taken away from the laity ? and is not this 
mangling the sacrament ? 1 answer, first, that, to speak properly, 
the cup is not taken away from them, because by the cup is com- 
monly meant the blood of Christ, which is no more taken away from 
them than his sacred body, from which it is inseparable. I answer, 
therefore, 2dly, that if by taking away the cup (as Protestants call 
it) we deprived them of the blood of Christ, it would be a mangled 
sacrament. But since it is absurd to say they are deprived by it 
of his sacred blood, it is doing us the greatest w r rong to say the sa- 
crament is mangled. 

I conclude from what has been said that they, who believe the 
body and blood of Christ to be taken and received really and truly 
in the Lord's supper, must either run into the impious extravagance 
of maintaining that his blood is really separated from his body ; or 
own that his body and blood being inseparable are conveyed into 
our stomachs by the action either of eating or of drinking only : 
and whoever owns this must likewise oWn first, that communion in 
one or both kinds is the same as to the things received, and differs 
only in the manner of receiving. And 2dly, that communion in 
one kind only does not defraud'the laity of any part of the spiritual 
meal, which Christ has ordained for them. But as to those, who 
utterly deny the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the he* 
ly sacrament, I have nothing more to say to them, than that I nei- 
ther envy them their bread and wine, nor desire to be a guest at 
their table. 

But St. Paul has laid down another maxim, from which it plain- 
ly follows, that communion in one kind only renders us partakers 
both of the body and blood of Christ. The maxim I speak of is 
thus delivered by him : " whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink 
the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and 
blood of the Lord," 1 Cor* xi. 27. Now if either eating or drink- 
ing unworthily suffices to render us guilty both of the body and 
blood of our Lord, it follows, by an undeniable consequence, that 
either eating or drinking worthily render us partakers both of his 
body and blood : and so the unjust clamour concerning our de- 
frauding the laity is fully confuted by St. Paul himself. I add, that 
his words are no obscure insinuation, that the apostles themselves 
did. cot always give the blessed sacrament under both kinds. 

H 



50 



COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 



I know very well, that to .avoid the unanswerable force of this 
argument, the Protestant translators of the Bible have made bold 
with this text, by changing or into and in the text itself; which 
entirely alters the sense of it. If any one questions the truth of 
what I say, let him but desire any learned divine to consult the ori- 
ginal text, and if he be sincere, he will own I have not wronged 
the Protestant translators. 

SECT. II. 

Communion in one kind is not contrary to the institution of Christ, 
nor a violation of any divine precept. 

This is fairly owned by tyshop Montague, (a Protestant,) who 
writes thus : " where does the scripture, says he, command that the 
people should receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper in both 
kinds ? the scripture teaches no such thing, the scripture does not 
command it." T. 1. Orig.p. 396. 

The Protestants in France are most certainly of bishop Mon- 
tague's opinion. For though they generally administer the sacra- 
ment in both kinds, and oblige all that can to receive it in that 
manner, yet, in a synod at Poitiers anno. I5()0, they decreed (Chap* 
13. Art. 7« of the Lord s supper) that the bread of our Lord's sup- 
per ought to be administered to those who cannot drink wine: as 
many in France, by their natural constitution, can neither endure 
the smell nor taste of it. This, I think, is a good Protestant testi- 
mony, that receiving the Communion in one kind is neither sacri- 
lege, nor* mangling the sacrament, nor a violation of any divine pre- 
cept. For if it were, no necessity could excuse it ; and they who 
could riot receive both kinds, would be obliged to receive neither 
the one nor the other* 

Nay, Luther himself was most certainly of opin'oft, that receiv* 
ing the sacrament either in one or both kinds was a thing indiffer- 
ent in itself. For he declared, " that if a council should either ap- 
point or permit communion in both kinds, he would in spite of that 
Council receive in one kind, or not at alh" Hist de Variar> C. 2. 10. 

But to wave other testimonies of this kind, I shall prove the 
point in question from a principle, which no Protestant can deny, 
viz. that if communion in one kind were contrary to the institution 
of Christ, or a violation of any divine precept, the church in her 
primitive and purest times would never have practised it upon any 
account whatsoever ; because no pretence whatsoever can justify a 
violation of a divine precept or institution of Christ. If, therefore, 
it be found that communion in one kind was frequently practised 
by the primitive church, I take it to be a demonstrative proof, that 
receiving the sacrament in both kinds has been always regarded by 
the church, not as a duty commanded by Christ, but as a matter of 
discipline only. 



OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 



51 



Now'ther-e are three undeniable facts, which prove that commu- 
nion in one kind was practised even by the primitive church, 1. 
In the communion of infants, who were allowed to drink of the 
cup without receiving the consecrated Host, Cypr. de Lapsis. 
2. in domestic communion ; the faithful being permitted, by rea- 
son of the persecutions, to carry with them consecrated hosts which 
they could easily keep in tjieir houses in order to receive the sacra- 
ment in private, when they durst not meet in public to celebrate 
the sacred mysteries ; Ter%. L. % ad Uxorem C, 5. St. Cypr. L. 
de Lapttis. And 3. One kind was also used in administering 
it to the sick : St, Denys of Alex, apud Euseb, Z. 6. Hist. 
c 44. 

From these undeniable instances of communions in one kind 
ractised by the primitive church, I infer it was her judgment : 
. That communion in one kind is not forbid by Christ, whose 
laws cannot b# violated upon any pretence whatsoever. 2. That 
the sacrament is not mutilated by it : for then it would be sacrilege 
to receive it in one kind* which the primitive church would not have 
suffered And 3. tha,t neither the Testament of Christ is violated, 
nor the faithful deprived of any part of our Saviour's legacy : both 
which #re impieties, which the primitive church would have ab- 
horred ; whence I conclude again, that receiving in one or both 
kinds is a matter of discipline, only, whjeh therefore the church 
has full authority to regulate as she judges most fitting. Nay con- 
sidering that the instances I have produced of communions in one 
kind were practised by the church in the very first and second age 
after the apostles, we may reasonably suppose, she followed in 
this the example of the apostles themselves* 

But did not Christ institute both kinds ? and is it not then act- 
ing contrary to the in&titutioDi to receive the sacrament in one 
kind only ? 

I answer \, The primitive c&urch did no^ think it to be con- 
trary to Christ's institution : and I see no reason why we should 
think ourselves wiser than the primitive church was. 

I answer, 2, That there is a lajge difference between institu- 
ting both kinds, and obliging all to receive both kinds. God in- 
stituted marriage, but all are not bound to marry. Christ likewise 
instituted priesthood and episcopacy j but all are not bound to be 
priests or bishops. Therefore unless there be a positive precept 
produced, which obliges all without exception to receive the sa- 
crament in both kinds, the institution alone, cannot import any 
such general obligation. Now it is vexy strange, that if there 
were any such positive precept, the primitive church should either 
know nothing of it, or act contrary to it if she knew it. 

But why then did Christ institute both kinds ? I answer, because 
the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, that is, a sign «f invisible 
^race instituted for the nourishment of our souls, but also a sacri- 
fice, which is one of the most essential parts of religion : *nd for 



32 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND* 

this reason Christ instituted the blessed Eucharist under both 
kinds, that by the mystical saparation of his body and blood upon 
the altar, signified by the separate forms of consecration, their 
real separation, on the cross, might he more perfectly represented, 
and so be both a standing lively memorial of the death he once 
suffered, and a perpetual oblation of infinite value for us. 

I add that there are several circumstances relating to the instil 
tution, which never were thought to be obligatory in after-times, 
I shall only mention two, 1st, the apostles received the sacrament 
sitting, as is expressly observed by three of the evangelists. Where- 
as those of the church of England, as well as Roman Catholics, 
receive it always kneeling, unless hindered by sickness, and 2dly, 
Christ consecrated and gave the blessed sacrament to his apostles 
in " supper-time, or after supper" MatU xxvi. 26. 44 As they 
were eating," Mark, xiv. 22. "As they did, eat," Luke, xxii. 19. 
20, He took bread, &c likewise also, the cup after supper say-; 
ing, &c. Nay, we do not find in scripture, that the blessed sa-> 
crament was ever consecrated or given at any other time of the 
day, and it is still called the Lord's supper. Yet, because Christ 
never enjoined this practice by any positive precept, the church has 
made a law against it ; and if any one should, presume either to 
consecrate or give the blessed, sacrament in supper time or after 
supper, in opposition to this d,ecree of the church, he woul;d most 
certainly be guilty of schism;, though he had, an undeniable example 
in scripture to colour his disobedience : Nay, an example set him, 
by all the apostles and Christ himself ; and that without any scrips 
tural evidence for the contrary practice, Let hut this be applied 
to the doctrine of the council of Constance, forbidding the laity in 
both kinds, though Christ administered it in both kinds to his 
apostles ; and the weakness of the argument drawn from it against 
ns, will be apparent to the meanest capacity. But let us now con- 
sider the texts, usually objected against us.. 

SECT. Ill, 

Objections frojn Scripture Ansivered. 

The Catechist has rnustered up six texts against us* But he 
might have saved himself the trouble, for four of the six are no- 
thing at all to the purpose. As for example, the following, " as 
often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's 
death till he come," Cor. xi. 256. which only proves, as I said before, 
that the sacrament (whether taken in one or both kinds) is a me- 
morial @f Christ's death, which is an undoubted truth. 

The three following texts, quoted by the Catechist, are full as 
wide from the purpose, viz., " this is my blood of the New Testa- 
ment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," Matt. 
xxvi; 26. " This tup is the New Testament in my blood which is 



OF COMMUNION IN ONErKlNI>. 



53 



shed for you," Luke, xxii. 20. " The cup of blessing, which we 
bless, is not the communion of the blood of Christ, 1. Cor. x. 16, 
These three texts, I say, are wholly wide from the purpose, and only 
prove (and indeed they prove it effectually) that Cnrist consecrated 
the cup into his blood, as well as the bread into his body, wi.ich I 
wish the Catechist believed as heartily as I do. But then I must 
desire him to remember, that Christ neither consecrated the cup 
into dead and inanimate blood, nor the bread into a (lead carcass. 
Whence I have concluded that whosoever receives his body, re-, 
ceives likewise his sacred blood, for a living body cannot be without 
blood, nor can we receive one half of Christ, without the other. 

The other two texts hare some shadow of difficulty ; but it will 
soon vanish, St. Matthew, xxvi. %1. says, " he took the cup and 
gave thanks, and gave it to. them saying, drink ye al]. of it." And 
St. Mark, xiv, 23, says, and they all drank of it," whence I pre-, 
sume, that the Catechist would have us conclude, that all are here 
commanded to drink the cup. But the all mentioned by St. Mark, 
explains the all that were commanded to drink according to St, 
Matthew. And who were those aU ? they could be no other than 
the apostles, who were the only persons with our Sa v iour at his 
last supper. For surely, if the apostles were the all that drank^, 
they were likewise the same all that were bid to drink. A strange 
argument to prove that the laity are bound to drink of the cup. 

But if any one asks whether \t be not remarkable that Christ; 
should in distributing the bread, say, no more than < tal^e and eat/ 
yet in giving the ci\p should say expressly, 'drink ye all of it,' to 
prevent as it were, the taking away of the cup ? (This is Mr. Les-r 
ly's observation ;) but I answer, that St. Luke lias given a reason 
for it, which utterly destroys the force of this observation, for he 
tells us, that Christ himself divided the bread, and gave to each 
apostle the morsel he was to eat, Z(uhe xxii. 11). So that all were 
not to eat of the same piece of consecrated bread, but all were to 
drink of the same consecrated cup ; which therefore (according to 
St. Luke's relation) he gave them, and bid them " divide it among 
themselves;" 17, And this explains our Saviour's saying, 'drink 
ye all of it ;' which was only said to caution them, that they were 
all to have their share of the cup he gave them, whereas, this cau-. 
tion was unnecessary as to the consecrated bread, which he distri- 
buted with h;s own hands. 

The last text, on which Protestants lay the greatest stress, is as 
follows : ? except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his 
blood, you shall have no life in you,' John vi. 53. This, say they, 
implies a positive precept of communion in bo h kinds, as a means 
necessary to attain life everlasting, I grant it implies a positive 
precept of receiving the body and blood of Christ, but not qf 
communion in both kinds : which I prove first from the prac- 
tice of the primitive church, who were surely as clear-sighted as 
the pretended reformers, yet never could discover a positive pre- 



54 



OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 



cept of communion in both kinds in that text. For had they seen 
it, they would not have acted contrary to it by administering the 
communion in one kind only, as they did on many occasions. 

But I prove it 2dly, from no less than four texts in the same 
chapter of St. John, where Christ promises eternal life to eating 
alone : as first, " this is the bread which came down from Heaven, 
that a man may eat thereof and not die 5 1 . 3dly, " he that eateth 
me shall live by me;" 57. and 4thly, "he i hat eateth this bread 
shall live for ever (* c 8. Since therefore life everlasting is here 
promised no Jess than four times to eating the bread without any 
ineniion of the cup, the true meaning of the above mentioned text, 
wherein both eating and drinking are mentioned, can be no other 
than this, viz. except we become partakers both of the body 
and blood of Christ for the nourishment of our souls, we shall have 
no life in us, which no Roman Catholic ever denied. But since it 
is impossible to receive the living body of Christ without receiving 
his blood by the very action of eating his body, it is an undeniable 
consequence, that commimion in one kind is an entire fulfilling of 
the precept implied in the above-mentioned text, as it fully answers 
the end for which the sacrament was instituted ; to wit, the obtain- 
ing of life everlasting according to Christ's promise, so often re- 
peated in the same chapter. 

Nay, nothing can be more rational than this interpretation of the 
fore-mentioned text ; because the only drift of our Saviour's dis- 
course was to convince the disbelieving Capharnaits, that unless 
their souls were nourished with the real flesh and blood of the son 
of man, they should not have life everlasting ; and that they, who 
were made partakers of his body and blood, should have life ever- 
lasting. So that provided the real body and blood of Christ be but 
received? whether it be by the action of eating, or of drinking only, 
or by both together, it is manifest that all worthy communicants, as 
they receive whole Christ, who is the fountain of grace and eternal 
life, so they fully satisfy the end of Christ's institution, and perform 
all that is obligatory in the precept of communion. 

This, I think, suffices to satisfy any man, who will be content with 
$ reasonable satisfaction ; and to convince him at the same time, 
that the loud clamours of Protestants against us on account of com- 
munion in one kind, are wholly unjustifiable, and appear to he the 
fruits of a violent party spleen, rather than a sincere zeal for the 
truth. I shall however, offer one consideration more, to make 
good the principle point I have maintained ; to wit, that there is 
no positive command to oblige all to receive the sacrament in both 
kinds. For, surely, if there were any such, command, I ma y confi- 
dently say, it is wholly improbable, the universal church, in any 
age whatsoever, could be so blind as not to see it, and if they saw 
it, I ask what motives could her bishops and pastors have to com- 
bine together in a resolution, to commit a damnable sin, by for- 
bidding what Christ has commanded, when there was neither ho- 



Or VENIAL SIN* 



55 



nour, nor interest, nor pleasure to induce them to it ? and yet it is 
an incontestable fact, that two general councils (and general coun* 
oils have always been regarded as the representatives of the univer- 
sal church) decreed that the sacrament should not be administered 
to the laity in both kinds* It is therefore plain, that when they 
mad©- this law, they were convinced in their hearts of two things* 
First, that the people were not injured by receiving it in one kind* 
and 2dly, that there was no command to oblige them to receive it in 
both. And if neither they nor the great lights of the primitive 
church, could ever discover any such command, it looks rather like 
a chimera than a probability, that a set of obscure factious persons, 
without mission or authority from any lawful superior, should be 
more intelligent and clear-sighted in divine matters than they, and 
see things wholly unseen before'. 



ARTICLE XL 

Or VENIAL SIN. 

The eleventh pretended error of Papists is, their holding that 
some sins are venial. And he adds, that it is the Protestant be- 
lief, that no sin is in its own nature venial, but every sin is 
deadly, and deserves eternal damnation, p. 13, 14. 

ANSWER. 

God forbid it should be so. But if it be true what the Catechist 
says, that this is Protestant doctrine, then I am very sure St. 
James was no Protestant. For he tells us, that " in many things 
we all offend :'' James iii. 2. not excepting the greatest servants of 
God, who are doubtless subject to the ordinary imperfections of 
human nature. But surely St. James could not mean that either 
himself or his fellow-apostles, or other great saints, who loved God 
with their whole hearts, offended him frequently with deadly sin, 
and such as deserved eternal damnation. There must therefore, be 
a difference between venial and mortal sin. Nay, Christ himself 
shews there is a difference between them by comparing some sins to 
camels, others to gnats, Matt xxiii. 24. some to motes, and others 
to beams : Matt. vii. 8. which comparison would be extremely im- 
proper, if all sins were damnable. 

In effect, it is repugnant both to reason and the infinite good- 
ness of God, to banish a creature for ever from his blessed sight, 
and condemn him to unquenchable flames, for the smallest tres- 
passes committed against him. For even in this world, no parent 
that acts rationally, disinherits his child for a trivial fault : nor do 
human laws condemn a man to death, but for some enormous crime. 



56 



OF PURGATORY, 



And how then, can the Catechist, with his Protestant friends, ima- 
gine, that a small offence of inadvertancv, of surprise, or of a petty 
injustice to his neighbour, which does him a very inconsiderable 
prejudice, should of th em selves be enough to deprive a man of his 
everlasting inheritance, and doom him to eternal death. 

As to the texts he produces against us, they only prove that any 
one mortal sin suffices to damn us; which nobody will dispute with 
him. But surely the Catechist will own himself to be a sinner, as 
well as his neighbours. He therefore falls into many sins : and if 
according to his own good-natured doctrine, he deals in no sins 
but such as are deadly, I hope I shall not be his companion at the 
great day of accounts. 



ARTICLE XII. 

OF PURGATORY. 

The twelfth pretended error of Papists^ is their doctrine of Pur* 
gatory ; which he says is dangerous and groundless, p. 13. 

ANSWER. 

By the doctrine of Purgatory, we mean precisely a middle state 
of souls ; that is, of the souls of such persons, who have neither liv- 
ed so innocently as to pass straight to Heaven from this life, nor 
yet so ill as to be doomed to everlasting flames. Now this doctrine 
is so far from being groundless, as the Catechist tells us, that it is 
deduced by a clear and necessary consequence from several texts of 
scripture. 

First, it is said, Matt. xii. 32. that whosoever speaketh against 
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
nor in the world to come." Upon which text St. Austin discourses 
thus: "it would not be truly said of some sins, that they shall nei- 
ther be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come, unless 
there were other sins, which, though not forgiven in this life, may 
yet be forgiven in the next; L. 21. de Civ. Dei. C. 24. Now no 
sort of sins enters into Heaven, and there is no forgiveness in Hell; 
therefore, there must be a third state capable of some sins, which 
in that state, may be forgiven. 

2dly, It is said, Rom. ii. 6. that " God will render to every man 
according to his deeds." And Apoc. xxi. 27. "nothing that denies 
shall enter into Heaven." Whence it follows, that as there is a 
middle state of men in this world, who are neither entirely inno- 
cent, nor yet in a state of damnation, there must also be for a time, 
a middle state of suffering in the next life. It is St. Austin's argu- 
ment in Ench. C. 109, 1 10. And the texts of scrip Lure now men- 



OF PUliGATOBY. 



57 



tioned prove it efficiently* For let us suppose three sorts of per- 
sons together. First, a child newly baptised, or a just man who 
has brought forth worthy fruits of repentance for all his sins ; se- 
condly, a man guilty of any of those crimes of which St. Paul says, 
that " they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of 
God;" Gal. v. 19, 20, 21. thirdly, a person, who either has not ful- 
ly satisfied the divine justice for all his past sins, or committed some 
small offences, whereof he has not yet repented : now if these three 
sorts of persons die suddenly, for example in their sleep by a fall 
of a house, the first are happy, Apoc. xiv. 13. The second are 
eternally miserable and doomed to hell. But if God will render to 
every man according to his works, what becomes of the third sort, 
who are neither in a state of damnation nor entirety innocent? 
where must they be expiated ? in Heaven ? but nothing that de- 
files enters there. In Hell ? from those torments there is no re- 
demption. It is then as certain, that there is a middle state of suf- 
fering after death, as it is that even just men are too often deficient 
in their duty, and that God after this life will render to every man 
according to his deeds ; that is, it is as certain as that the Gospel 
is true. 

But does God ever punish a pardoned sin ? I answer, if the re- 
pentance be sincere, yet not so perfect as it ought, the sin may be 

so forgiven, that all temporal punishment is not released with it • 

The prophet told David upon his repentance, that his sin was par- 
doned, 2 Samuel, xii. 13. But he let him know at the same time 
that he was still to undergo many afflictions for it, " as that his 
child should die," 14. and that "the sword should never depart 
from his house," 10, &e. And none but infidels can say, that God 
is unjust in punishing original sin in children, with sickness, death, 
ignorance, and passion, after the guilt of it is washed off in baptism. 
Such considerations as these are requisite to give us a true idea of 
sin. Which, as St. Augustin says, * would appear but little, if the 
punishment of it ended with the guilt.' 

If we consult antiquity, we shall find it has always been the prac- 
tice of the Catholic church to pray for the relief of the faithful de- 
parted. ' The church (says Mr. Thorndike) has always assisted 
them with the prayers of the living.' Just Weights and Measures, 
c. 16. p. 107- ' And the practice of the church, (says he) in inter- 
ceding for the dead at the celebration of the Eucharist is so general 
and so ancient, that it cannot be thought to have come in upon im- 
posture, but that the same aspersion will seem to take hold of the 
common Christianity ;' ib. p. 106. Indeed this is so manifest a 
truth ; that a man must resolve to outface evidence to deny it; as 
will appear from the few following quotations, which, for brevity 
sake, I have chosen out of many . 

In the end of the second century, Tertullian says of a faithful 
widow, « she both prays for the soul of her husband, and begs a re 



58 



OF FUItGATORY. 



freshment for him in the mean time, — and keeps his anniversaries', 
&e. L. de monogarn. c. 10. 

One part of Anus's heresy in the fourth century according to St; 
Epiphanius, was, 4 that the prayers and alms of the living did the 
dead no good ;' Her. 75. §. T. 1. p. 908. Against whom he writer 
that the church 1ms this tradition from Christ, that the prayers are 
profitable for the dead, though they do not extinguish all sins § 8. 
p. 912. And that we mention the saints and other faithful depart- 
ed in a quite different manner. 4 The saints, that we may give a 
singular honour to Christ, and others that we may obtain mercy for 
them i ibid. 

St. Chrysostom writes thus : 4 the apostles (says he) did not in 
vain command these things, that in the venerable and dreadful mys- 
teries the dead should be remembered; for they knew they would 
derive a considerable advantage from it ;' Horn. 3. in Epist. ad 
Philip. And again, 4 the dead (says he) may be helped by prayers, 
and alms, and offerings ; because they were not instituted in vain :* 
and concludes, 4 let us therefore help them. For we have before us 
the expiatory sacrifice of the world. It may happen, that we may 
obtain a total pardon for them by prayers, by oblation, by the saints 
who are named with them ;' Horn. 41-. in Epist. 1. ad Cor. What 
a deal of Popery is here crowded together in these few lines of St. 
Chrysostom, Mass, purgatory, invocation of saints, and what not ? 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, writes thus : 4 lastly, we pray for all that 
die amongst us : thinking it to be the greatest help that can be to 
their souls to have the holy and dreadful sacrifice of the altar offer- 
ed in supplication for them :' Cat. Mystag. 5. p. 291. Here again 
we find this ancient father at Mass, praying for the souls in purga- 
tory ; for which a priest would be hanged, drawn, and quartered 
in this island, if the laws of queen Elizabeth were executed against 
him. O blessed reformation ! 

We likewise find St Austin guilty of the same treasonable prac- 
tice, in having Mass said for the soul of his mother, as he owns in 
his confessions. But (Serm. 17. §. 2.) he writes thus: 4 by the pray- 
ers of the holy church (says he) and the wholesome sacrifice and 
alms, it is not to be doubted, but the dead are assisted. So that 
God deals more mercifully with them, than their sins have deserv- 
ed.' Which he proves thus : 4 because it is the practice of the whole 
church to pray and offer sacrifice for them.' 

Here then we have these venerable witnesses of antiquity posi- 
tively maintaining a state of souls in the other world, wherein they 
are refreshed, helped, favoured with the pardon of some sins, and 
more mercifully dealt with than their sins deserve, in consideration 
of the p ravers, alms, and holy sacrifice of the altar offered up for 
them by the faithful upon earth : nay and declaring that this was 
the nractiee of the whole church in their time, and that it was de- 
ri\ 7 d from Christ himself and his apostles. What a grievous want 
of the reformation was there in those Popish days ! 



* 



OF PURGATORY. 



Objections Answered. 

The Catechist pretends to prove, that there is no such place as 
purgatory from these words of St. John ; " blessed are the dead that 
die in tiie Lord ; from henceforth, says the spirit, that they may rest 
from their labour;" Apoc. xiv. 13. I answer, that death puts an 
end to all labouring or working for salvation, according to these 
words of our Saviour ; ? the night cometh when no man can work,'* 
John ix. 4. But it does not put an end to all suffering, except it 
be in relation to such pious souls as are perfectly innocent or puri- 
fied by their sufferings in this life. 

He proceeds next to shew that the doctrine of purgatory is dan- 
gerous and groundless for five reasons. First, (says he) * because 
there is no ground for it in scripture.' 2dly, ' because they that be- 
long to God can be no where afflicted but he is afflicted with them.' 
But the first is answered already ; and I promise to answer the se- 
cond, as soon as I have capacity enough to understand that it is any 
thing to the purpose.. 

His third reason is, ' because it denies the fullness of Christ's sa ' 
tisfaction.' I answer, that if suffering for our sins in the life to come 
be injurious to Christ's satisfaction, then suffering for them in this 
life, carrying our cross, and bearing worthy fruits of repentance, to 
which the gospel exhorts us, must likewise be injurious to it. 

His fourth reason is, ' because the doctrine of purgatory lessens 
the horrid nature of sin.' I answer, if purgatory could expiate the 
guilt of mortal sin, or if men were naturally fond of suffering bit- 
terly even for lesser offences, I should be of the Catechist's opinion. 
But it is above my comprehension, that punishments and sufferings 
should lessen the horror of sin. 

His last reason against purgatory is, < that the desire St. Paul 
had of being dissolved was, that he might be with Christ,' Phil. i. 23. 
Very right : and it is the desire of all pious souls. But they leave 
it to God to judge, whether at their dissolution they shall be wor- 
thy to be immediately admitted to his blessed sight ; and resign 
themselves entirely to his holy will and pleasure. 

As to what he says, ' that the doctrine of purgatory impairs the 
confidence and comforts of the saints/ I can easily guess what sort 
of saints he means. But if the fear of purgatory lessens any man's 
confidence in God, surely the fear of Hell will lessen it much more ; 
and yet we are all exhorted in the gospel to fear him, wh© can ea^t 
^oth soul and body into Hell, Matt. x. 28. 



OF BELIEVING THE SCRIPTURES, &C* 



ARTICLE XIII, 

OF BELIEVING THE SCRIPTURES UPON THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF THE 

CHURCH. 

The thirteenth pretended error of Papists is, that they believe the 
scriptures upori the sole authority of the church, p. 5 

ANSWER. 

We believe the scriptures, because they contain the pure worcj 
of God, and were written by divine inspiration. But setting aside 
the authority of the Catholic church, men cannot without a miracle 
have a certain knowledge that all the books of scripture were writ- 
ten in that manner. If this be an error, the learned St. Austin was 
deeply concerned in it. For he declared positively to the Mani- 
chees, 'that he would not believe the gospels themselves, unless 
the authority of the church induced him to it.' contra ]3pisi, Fund 
c. 4. What a zealous Papist did this holy and learned father here 
declare himself? 

Yet he advances nothing but what is evident to common sense ; 
for no book is scripture because it says it is so j otherwise the Al- 
coran might be such. Much less is any book scripture because it 
is written in an humbje, grave, serious, or majestic style: for al-, 
though this dress becomes the word of God, yet it no more makes it 
to be so than purple makes a king, or gives him a title to the crown. 
And you may as well imagine that the sacreol pen-men. did not 
write in the language of other mortals, as that they have a style so 
peculiar to themselves, that no man can imitate it without being in- 
spired, Neither is a book scripture, because it contains nothing 
but what is true. For all true relations of things are not scrip: ure,, 
How then is it possible for mankind to have, without a miracle, a cer- 
tain assurance that such and such books (written near two thousand 
years ago) are scripture, i,f they have no regard to the human autho- 
rity by which they are recommended as books written by diyine inspi- 
ration ? however this doctrine makes the Catechist very uneasy. 

But where is the evil of \t ? he says, < it lieth herein, namely, 
that men being liable to mistakes may lead us into errors. So that 
we can never he sure, that what we take as our rule, is indeed that 
right one of God's prescribing. Therefore the testimony of the 
church cannot be the only or chief reason of our believing the scrip- 
ture to be the word of God,' p. 5. 

Aecording to this way of arguing we can $ever be sure of the 
truth of any thing that is told us by men ; which unsettles the very 
foundations of faith. For does not faith come by hearing ? 
Bom. x. 17. And are they not the voices of men, which we hear ? 
surely the Cutechist was seized with a more than ordinary tit of in- 



OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS, 



61 



advertency when he wrote this piece. For it knocks down at one 
blow till church authority in matters of faith: because the church 
is certainly composed of men, and iX is not safe according to the 
Catechist to take our rule of faith from men. But what is worst 
of all, the apostles themselves, are brought into disrepute by it : for 
it is certain they were men, and by consequence the first Christians 
that were instructed bfy them, ' could never be sure (as the Cate* 
chist argues) that what they took as their rule of faith was indeed 
the right one of Qod's prescribing.' Nay what will become of the 
scriptures themselves ? foj* they were written by men ; and men 
(according to the Catechist's way of arguing) being liable to mis-* 
takes, may lead, us into errors. But could he not reflect with him* 
self that men, though fallible by nature, m$y, by the divine assist- 
ance, convey the infallible word, of God, to others, either by word of 
mouth or writing ? especially such men, as have their commission 
and authority from God to preach the word ; and whom he has pro* 
nused to lead into aU truth, even unto the end of the world ? 

But let us now see upon what ground he settles the Protestant 
belief of scriptures, The question and answer are delivered thus, 
p. .5. Q. " What then is the chief reason of our belief of scriptures ? 
A. The testimony of the spirit of Qod in the word itself witnessing 
it to be of God." This is downright Quakerism ; and he quotes the 
very same texts for proof of it, w hich every Quaker has without 
book to justify his nonsense, which is all the answer it deserves, 



ARTICLE XIV, 

OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS, 

Th<e fourteenth. pretended s error of Papists is t tlipir rqceimncf un- 
written traditions with equal respect and reverence, as Protestants 
receive the Jwly scriptwes, p. 4« 

ANSWER,. 

The Catechist ought here to have told bis reader, what sort of 
unwritten traditions we receive with the same respect as the holy 
scriptures, But since he did not think fit to do it, St. Paul shall do 
it for him. " Therefore (says he) brethern stand fast, and hold the 
traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our 
epistle," 2 Thes. ii. 15. Here St. Paul speaks plainly of unwritten 
traditions taught by the apostles, and gives them the same weight 
and authority as to his own epistle. Because they convey to us the 
pure word of God as certainly, as scriptures themselves. 

If you say, that all tradition is uncertain, 1st, this is evidently to 
contradict St, Paul, who tells us, that the traditions of the apostles 



62 



OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS. 



are to be held stedfastly. And must not every thinking man, who 
is not harried away with prejudice, be of the same mind? for sure- 
ly the word of God is equally the word of God, whether it be deli- 
vered to us by word of m^outh, or by writing. Christ himself laid 
the foundation of the church by preaching only, and the apostles 
preached several years before they writ any of the canonical books 
of scripture. Now I presume they preached the pure word of God, 
and by consequence it was not their writing that made it the word 
of God, for it was the word before they wrote it : and thougl 
they had never w r ritten at all, but delivered the whole Christian 
doctrine only by word of mouth to those who succeeded them in 
their apostolical charge, we should have been obliged to receive it 
as the word of God, and therefore with the same respect as we do 
now the holy scripture. I add, that if apostolical tradition be ne* 
cessarily uncertain, we cannot be sure of the scripture itself, which 
is convej^edto us by no other channel. And if the books of scrip- 
ture can be infallibly conveyed to us by tradition from the apostles> 
why may not the Trinity or any other mystery of Christian faith ? 
the reason in both cases is manifestly the same. 

If you say, 2dly, that all points of Christian doctrine were after-* 
wards written in the bible : I answer, 1st, that the bible no where 
says this. 2dly, That the church of all ages, from which we receiv- 
ed the bible itself, tells us the contrary. St. Irenseus, an eminent 
father and martyr of the second age, writes thus : 4 suppose (says he) 
the apostles had left us no scriptures, ought we not to have followed 
the rule of tradition, which they delivered to those, to whose care 
they committed the churches ;' L. 3. C 3. 

4 It is apostolical, (says St. Basil) to hold even unwritten tradi- 
tion ;' L. de Sp. 8. a 29- 

4 Tradition too is necessary, (says St. Epiphanius ;) for all things 
cannot be had from the scripture. Therefore the blessed apostles 
left us some things in writing, and others by tradition ;' Hcer. 61. 

St. Chrysostom agrees with them in the very same doctrine. 4 It 
is clear (says he) the apostles did not deliver all things in writing, 
but many things without it, and these too deserve to be believed — 
Let us then give credit to the traditions of the church. It is tradi- 
tion, seek no farther Horn. 4. in Ep. 2. ad Thess. 

However the Catechist cannot relish this doctrine. And the 
( evil of it (he says) consists in making traditions of men equal in 
dignity and authority with the express word of God,' p. 4. But he 
is utterly mistaken. We make nothing that is not the word of God 
equal with that, which is the word of God ; but we only make the 
unwritten word of God delivered to us by the tongues of men, equal 
with the written word of God delivered to us by the pens of men. 
For I presume the apostles were equally men, whether they spoke 
or wrote. And I here ask the Catechist, whether if St. Paul had 
Instructed him in any point of the Christian doctrine only by word 
of mouth, he would not have believed it to be the word of God, and 



OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS. 



63 



paid the same respect to it, as if he had writ it to him in a letter? 
this I fear is a puzzling question. 

Let us now hear the Catechist's opinion of this matter. i It is that 
the scriptures in themselve are a full, sufficient, and perfect rule ; 
because (says he) they contain all things, that are necessary for 
men to believe and do m order to eternal life,' p. 4, However as 
positive as the Catechist seems to be in the matter, I own I have 
some scruples relating to it, and desire his assistance to be satisiied 
in them. But for brevity's sake I shall only propose two ; one re- 
lating to what is to be believed, the other relating to what is to be 
done. 

As to the first, I think the Catechist is bound as well as myself 
to believe, that all the books of the Old Testament set down in the 
9th article of religion, together with all the parts of the New Test- 
ament as it is printed in the bible, he is bound, I say, to believe all 
these to be canonical scriptures. This then is a part of the Chris- 
tian faith, and necessary to be believed. Now I desire the Cate- 
chist .to let me know, what text of scripture he has to determine pre- 
cisely the number of canonical books. For if there be no text for 
it, as I never could find any, it follows that there is something to 
be believed which cannot be found in the books themselves of scrip- 
ture. And, by consequence, the written word alone is not a full 
rule of faith. 

But I think there is likewise something necessary to be done, for 
which the Catechist will have some difficulty to find a text of scrip- 
ture. The thing I mean, is keeping the Sunday holy instead of Sa- 
turday. For I scarce believe he will allow salvation to a person, 
who should make an avowed practice of prophaning the Sunday, 
and doing all manner of servile works upon it, and keeping the Sa- 
turday, (as the Jews do) instead of it. Now then it behoves the 
Catechist to produce a text commanding the Sunday to be kept holy, 
as there certainly is one, which expressly commands the " Saturday to 
be kept holy," JEJxod, xx. 8. For if he cannot produce any such text, 
as I am sure he cannot, then the observance or sanctifying of the 
Sunday is a thing necessary to be done, for which there is no ex- 
press scripture ; and the Catechist as well as myself must be oblig- 
ed to the tradition of the church for the safety of his practice in set- 
ting aside the Saturday, and keeping the Sunday instead of it. All 
which put together shews plainly, that there is no error in paying 
the same respect to apostolical traditions as to the scriptures them- 
selves : because the apostles taught nothing but the pure word of 
God ; which, whether it be written or unwritten, is equally an un- 
erring rule both of faith and practice. 

But here the Catechist produces five texts to prove * that scrip- 
ture contain all things necessary for men to believe or do.' The 
four first are taken from Isa. viii. 20, John xx. 31, Gal. i. 8, and 
Eph> ii. 20. But they have so little connection with the matter he 
quotes them for* that the four first verses of Genesis would be as 



64 



OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS, 



much . to his purpose. I appeal to the judgment of any man for the 
truth of what I say. 

As to his fifth text it is thus quoted by the Catechist; " From a 
child thou hast known the scriptures, which are able to make thee 
wise unto salvation through faith, which is in Jesus Christ, that the 
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
works," 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. He should have said 15, 17- For he 
omitted the 16th verse for reasons best known to himself. How- 
ever the Catechist has quoted enough to shew that the objection 
can do him no service. For what were the holy scriptures which* 
Timothy had known from a child ? doubtless the Old Testament 
only, for no part of the New Testament was then Written. Either 
then the New Testament is not necessary to make a man wise to 
salvation, or apostolical tradition may be also necessary. 

In the 16th verse omitted by the Catechist, St. Paul tells Us, 
" that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
tion, that the man of God may be perfect, &c. Of this no one 
doubts. But it is a quite different thing, to say the scripture is pro- 
fitable or useful for such and such effects, and to saj^ the scripture 
alone is sufficient for them. Drink is profitable for perfect health 
and all the functions of life in the best and most complete manner. 
But is there no need of meat ? Again, meat is profitable, for all the 
very same effects. But is there no need of drink ? I add that the 
scripture is even sufficient for all the ends he mentions when rightly 
understood, that is, by the lights to which the scripture ilself di- 
rects us (which lights are chiefly apostolical tradiiion, and the sense 
of ihe church) or when a man has learned from the pastors of the 
church the tenets of the Christian doctrine. For then the scripture 
will furnish him abundantly both with examples and moral instruc- 
tions for all Christian virtues. 

For the Catechises farther satisfaction, I shall transcribe the par- 
aphrase of Dr. Hammond, a Protestant divine, upon the words of 
St. Paul, p. 752. v. 15. ' And having been instructed in the under- 
standing the Old Testament ever since thou wert a child, thou will 
certainly by the help of the Christian doctrine, which thou hast re- 
ceived, be able to distinguish the truth from the false doctrine of ihe 
Gnostics, v. 16. For all those writings, which have at any time 
been written by tne prophets, and as such received into the canon of 
the Jewish church, may by us be profitably made use of, to teach us 
many things that Christ has taught us/ So that if Dr. Hammond 
be right, St. Paul in this whole passage, speaks only of the Old 
Testament. Which certainly is not the entire rule of Chris ian 
belief 



GE IMAGES. 



ARTICLE XV. 

OF IMAGES. 

The fifteenth pretended error of Papists is, their worshiping of 
Images, p. 17. 

ANSWER. 

What we hold concerning images, is contained in this snort de- 
claration of the council of Trent : viz. ' that the images of Christ 
and his saints are to be retained, and that a due honour and vene- 
ration is to be given them." Sess. 25. This, L think, is but 
consonant to the light of nature ; and there is not a eobler or por- 
ter of sound judgment in the world, but knows as well as the ablest 
divine, that a person may be honoured or affronted by respecting 
or despising his image. So that to question this, is to question the 
general notion of all mankind. 

We see men hanged or burned in effigy, when their persons can- 
not be reached : and the pictures and images of our friends and so- 
vereigns treated with honour and respect. Now what is the reason 
of this ? it can be no other than an imbred principle of nature that 
the honour or affront done to pictures and images redounds upon 
the persons, whose images and pictures they are. And if persons 
can be thus honoured in their images ; ought we not to testify the 
respect we have for Christ and his saints by all the marks of ho- 
nour, that reason and religion can suggest ? 

If you tell me that bowing before any image is forbid in the 2d 
commandment, Exod. xx. 5« Deut. v. 9« I answer, either what 
you call the second commandment is a precept of the law of nature, 
or it is not. If it be not, it does not bind Christians. For what 
the church of England says in the 7th of the 39th article, concern- 
ing Mosaical rites and ceremonies, is equally true of the command- 
ments themselves, as far as they contain any thing, which is not a 
precept of the law of nature. Otherwise Christians would be tied 
to the Jewish Sabbath, that is, to make Saturday the day of wor- 
ship. But if these words, thou shalt not bow down to them, be a 
natural precept, you need not quote the commandments to prove 
the thing unlawful. 

If you ask me, whether those words be a natural precept, or not ? 
I answer : as they forbid any respect to idols, that is, to the images 
of false gods, they are doubtless a natural precept : but a Christian 
is no more forbid to bow to a crucifix, than he is forbid to bow to 
the chair of state, to the altar, or communion table, to the bible, to 
the name of Jesus, or to one another in common conversation. — 
This is so manifest to sommon sense, that nothing but the most un- 
reasonable prejudices of education are capable of holding any one 

K 



OF IMAGES. 



tlie contrary opinion. As to tha Jews (a nation so extremely 
prone te idolatry as to fall into it, Exod. xxxii. at the very time 
when Moses was receiving the commandments from God) if they 
lul l any farther restraint, Christians are not all concerned in it. 

If you say again, that bowing, kneeling, &c. are acts of divine 
worship. I answer, this is a groundless cavil. In the scripture 
they are not peculiar to God alone, nor are they always signs of a 
divine adoration, but sometimes of an inferior honour, sometimes 
of none at all. Even the very same outward action may bear these 
different regards. When a subject bows to the chair of state, it is 
an act of loyalty in regard of the king, but not with regard to the 
chair. Nor does he give to the chair the king's honour, for then it 
would be an act of treason. When he kisses the bible, or bows to 
the altar, or to the name of Jesus, it is an act of divine worship in 
regard of Christ's person. It is a relative and inferior honour with 
regard to the bible, to the altar, or to the sound in the air. And 
whether you will call it religious worship or not, is only a question 
about words. When the soldiers bowed down, and kneeled to our 
Saviour, Matt, xxvii. 29. It was neither an act of divine worship, 
nor of any inferior honour, but only of contempt. But how do we 
know that bowing to the altar, is not giving it divine honour ? Be- 
cause the altar is not the God of Christians : nor does the heart of 
a Christian intend any such thing. 

However the Catechist is not satisfied : for, says he, we worship 
the images of Christ and the saints, and that is idolatrous : but, if 
he will but understand plain English and common sense, I tell him 
once more, we worship them no otherwise, than Protestants worship 
the communion table, or the sound of the name of Jesus, when they 
bow to it, or the bible when they kiss it. If they deny that they 
worship them in paying that respect, we deny it in the very same 
sense. But if they grant they worship them, then it follows, that 
creatures may be worshipped with an inferior or relative honour, 
and they must not blame us for it. 

In effect, no word is more equivocal than the word worship.— 
Every justice of peace is called worshipful. It follows there- 
fore that he has a just title to a civil worship: and if we pay him 
the respect due to him, I hope it will not turn him into an idol. 
Nay, in the words of matrimony, according to the form of the 
church of England, the man says to the woman, with this ring I 
thee wed, and with my body I thee worship. Yet I believe no 
Christian husband, though ever so fond, ever intended to make a 
goddess of his wife, or pay her divine worship. Thus then the 
word worship is often taken for a mere civil respect : and when it 
is taken for an honour given upon a motive of religion, its signi- 
fication, if applied to God, is as different from what it means, 
when it is applied to creatures, as if we had two different words to 
express our different conceptions. 

Whence it plainly follows, that the controversy about worshiping 



OF IMAGES. 



images is but a question about words, and therefore beneath a se- 
rious dispute. 

It follows again, that all reasoning from such ambiguous words, 
is nothing at the bottom but fallacy and amusement ; and a mere 
design to perplex ignorant people, by hiding from them the true 
state of the question. 

Let us now hear what Protestants believe according to the Cat- 
echist. lie tells us their belief is that it is unlawful, " 1. To make 
images of God. 2. To direct our worship to an image, or by the 
help of an image. 3. To give religious worship to any creature,'* 

p. 17. 

This piece contains three heads. I shall touch briefly upon each. 
To the first I say, it is unlawful to make images or pictures of God, 
so, as to believe them to be true representations of the divine na- 
ture ; which some heretics held to be corporeal. Nay even Tertul- 
lian fell into that error. But since God the Father appeared to 
Daniel in the likeness of an old man, and God the Holy Ghost ap- 
peared over our Saviour's head in the likeness of a dove, I cannot 
see how it should be a crime to paint or carve those corporeal 
figures, in which he was pleased to appear. For surely an histori- 
cal part of the bible may lawfully be painted, or represented in carv- 
ing. And this is all that our painters pretend to do, and they have 
the example of the church of England to encourage them to it.- — 
For the picture of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove is to be 
seen in all her common prayer books that are printed with cuts — 
And therefore, since the Holy Ghost is as pure a Spirit and as truly 
God as the Father, if it be lawful to represent the one m the like- 
ness of a dove ; it is a mystery wholly incomprehensible, that it 
should be unlawful to represent the other in. the likeness of an old 
man. 

As to the 2d, viz. that it is unlawful to direct our worship to an 
image, If the Catechist means, that it is unlawful to pray to it, or 
give it divine worship, I heartily subscribe to what he says ; for we 
detest any such practice. But if he means, that it is unlawful to 
use an image with respect purely for the sake of the person it re- 
presents, what he says is not only a mistake, but contrary to the 
light of nature, as I have already shewn. 

However, according to his laudable custom, he produces here 
two texts to make a flourish with. The first from St. Matthew, iv. 
10. " thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve," which only proves that divine worship or adoration is due 
to God alone. The second from Apoc. xix. 10. 'see thou do it 
not, I am thy fellow-servant,' though wholly foreign to the point 
in question, it shall be honoured with St. Austin's answer, who 
writes thus: 'the angel appeared in such a manner, that he might 
have been adored as God ; therefore St. John's mistake was to he 
corrected.' Q. 6. in Gen. This I think is a very rational expla- 
nation of that text : and if the Catechist will not allow of it, he. 



68 



OF IMAGES. 



must either say, that St. John intended to commit idolatry, or was 
so ignorant as not to know what was idolatry, what was not. 

What he adds, viz. that it is unlawful to worship by the help of 
an image, is beyond my comprehension. For how can it be a crime 
in any man to make use, for example, of an image of Christ on the 
the cross, in order to raise his heart to the love and adoration of 
Christ crucified, 

As to the last, viz, that it is unlawful to give a religious wor- 
ship to any creature, I have already answered, that this is most 
certainly true, if by religious worship he means the supreme ador-. 
ation, which is due to God alone. But if his meaning be, that no 
religious honour whatsoever can lawfully be paid to creatures, he 
either quarrels about a word, or he has the practice of the whole 
church of England flatly against him. For, first, I think the bible 
and communion table are creatures, yet English Protestants make 
no scruple to bow to them ; which surely is a respect paid wholly 
upon a religious motive : that is, by reason of the relation those 
things have to God. Secondly, it cannot be doubted, but that 
angels and saints are creatures. Yet the church of England keeps 
one holy day for all the saints in general, and another for St. 
Michael and all the angels. Now, if keeping holy days by any 
part of religious devotion, as I presume it is, then this is properly 
a religious honour. Nay, whenever we honour a person, whether 
dead or alive, merely for spiritual gift red upon him by God, 

then the honour we pay him is not civil but religious. And since 
the honour paid by the church, of England to saints and angels, 
when she keeps holy days in memory of them, is of this nature, the 
Catechist must certainly overshoot himself in saying, that it is un- 
lawful to give a religious honour or worship (let him call it by what 
name he pleases) to any creature - 

SECT, IL 

Of Belies. 

Though the Catechist has no express article concerning relics in 
the body of his catechism, he thought better of it in his additions 
or appendix to it, where the honour we pay to relics is dignified by 
the name of foppery, and made the chief proof of his charge of su- 
perstition and idolatry against us, p. 32, 33. I shall therefore 
speak briefly of it in this place, as likewise of some other things 
called fopperies by this worthy gentleman ; as, the blessing of the 
holy water, the sign of the cross, and the like. 

As to the hones and ashes of saints (the honouring whereof he 
mentions with reproach) I own we keep them with the same res- 
pect, as the church did in the most primitive ages. Nay God him- 
self, even long before the law of grace, was pleased to honour the 
boiujs of Eliseus with an extraordinary miracle, to wit, the raising 



OF RELICS. 



a dead man to life. w For (says, the scripture) they cast the man 
into the sepulchre of Eliseus, and when the man was let down and 
touched the hoaes of Elisous, he revived, and stood upon his feet," 
4 Kings xiii. 21, Is it then foppery to honour the bones of saints, 
when God himself has set the example ? And that even before the 
gates of Heaven were opened by the death of Christ, and their souls 
admitted to eternal bliss ? 

But Heaven no sooner began to be peopled with martyrs and con- 
fessors, but the church began likewise to pay a singular veneration 
to their mortal remains. Whereof I shallonly give two instances, 
for brevity's sake. 1. In the acts of St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch 
and martyr, written by those who accompanied him to Rome, where 
he suffered, Ann. 107. For we read, 'that being devoured by wild 
beasts, there was nothing left of his holy relics, but only some of' 
the bones, which were carried to Antioch, and left to that church 
for the martyr's sake, as an inestimable treasure.' 

2. The martyrdom of St. Poly carp, Ann. 18ft was written by 
the church of Smyrna, whereof he was bishop, And Eusebius says, 
* they observed, that the devil did his best, by the. means of Jews 
and Gentiles, that the Christians should not have his blessed body. 
But that after it was burnt, the Christians carried away his bones, 
which they valued more than gold and precious stones.' Apud. Ens. 
L. 4, Hist. C. 1-5. p- 134. And must not a man have a good stock 
of confidence to call this religious practice of the most primitive 
ages foppery ? 

But let us come somewhat lower down. In the end of the 4th 
century, one Vigilantius writ, as the Catechist does, against the 
practice of the Catholic church in the veneration of relics. But 
how did St. Jerom compliment him upon it ? ' Vigilantius (says he) 
fights with an unclean spirit against the spirit of Christ, by assert- 
ing that the tombs of martyrs, are not to be reverenced ;' L. contra 
Vigil. And again in the same book : ' the devils (says he) with which 
Vigilantius is possessed, roar at the relics, and confess they cannot 
bear the presence of the martyrs.' Nay, he tells him, i that all the 
bishops in the world were against him ;' and in his 53d epistles, he. 
writes thus : ' you tell me that Vigilantius vomits once more his 
poison against the relics of martyrs, calling us dust-worshippers and- 
idolaters, for reverencing dead men's bones. O ! unhappy man, 
who can never be sufficiently lamented ! 

Thus did St. Jerom treat Vigilantius for opposing the vener- 
ation of relics then practised by the universal church. And it is 
to be observed that this heretic gave the name of dust worshippers 
and idolaters to the orthodox Christians of those times. Which is, 
a demonstrative proof, 1st, that even the dust or ashes of saints 
were held in veneration by the primitive Christians. 2dly, that the 
imputation of superstition and idolatry for the veneration of relics, 
is an old calumny against the Catholic church. 



70 



@F THE HGN OF THE CROSS, 



SECT. III. 

Of Blessing ourselves with the Sign of the Cross. 

This is foppery and superstition in the Catechist's language • 

But what an age do we live in when the sign of the sacred instru- 
ment of man's redemption is made a subject of laughter among 
Christians ? However this was one of the earliest fruits of the re- 
formation. For then it was, that a crucifix began to be treated 
with ignominy and contempt, as if it were the image of some infa- 
mous traitor, or enemy of the state. And even now (as I have 
seen with my own eyes) a man becomes as ridiculous in Protestant 
company, by blessing himself with the sign of the cross, as if he 
were dressed up in a fool's coat. 

But was it so in the primitive ages ? let us hear what Tertuliian 
writes upon this subjeot. 4 At every step and every turn, at every 
coming in and going out, if we put on our clothes, or change our 
shoes, if we wash, if we take a repast, if a candle be brought into 
the room, if we lie or sit, whatever we do we are still making the 
sign of the cross upon our foreheads.' Z. de corona milit. c. 3. 

This passage of Tertuliian is alone so full and ample a testimo- 
ny of the judgment of antiquity in relation to the subject in ques^ 
lion, that it is impossible for any man to read it without being con- 
vinced, that our adversaries, in deriding our practice, condemn that 
of the purest ages of the church. 

SECT. IV, 

Of the Use of Holy Water and other Blessings. 

Page 32, the Catechist mentions holy water, and several bles- 
sings used in the church of Rome, as so many instances of Popish 
foppery. Let us see whether they do not deserve to be treated 
with more respect. As for holy water, it is above eleven hundred 
years since it began to be used in England. This appears from St, 
Gregory's epistle to St. Melitus, to whom he wrote thus : ' let the 
idols be destroyed, let holy water be made, let it be sprinkled in 
the said temples. Let altars be made, and relics be placed in them,' 
L. 11. Epist. 73- This is an unanswerable proof, that the English 
received the use of holy water, together with their Christianity. 

But it may be traced much higher : For in the reign of Con- 
stantine, the first Christian emperor, when the Jews by magical en- 
chantments hindered the building of a church, we have in St.. 
Epiphanius this blessing of water used effectually by the holy count 
Joseph ; who, after he had made the sign of the cross, upon it, 
prayed thus: 'in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, may th,is crater 
have power against the magical charms and enchantments they 



OF HOLT WATEB, ETC. 



71 



have used r aad may it restore to the fire its natural force, that the 
house of God may be finished,' 

We have the like instance in Thedoret, of water blessed with 
the sign of the cross, and no less effectually used, by St. Marcellua, 
bishop of Apamea, against the devil hindering a temple of the 
heathens from taking fire. For the blessed water was no sooner 
thrown upon it, but the charm was dissolved. L. 5. Hist. Eccl 
c. 21. * 

St. Jerom also relates, that one Italicus, a Christian officer of 
Gaza, who by his place was to entertain the people with the games 
called circenses, but had his horses enchanted by his adversary a 
heathen, had some water given him by St Hilarion, with which he 
sprinkled his horses, his chariot, and the barriers, from whence they 
used to run, and that the charm of witchcraft ceased upon the 
sprinkling this water. So that the people cried out, Marnas is 
overcome by Christ, and many heathens were converted upon it.— 
Hier* in vita Hit. p. 323 Paris edition. 

These are sufficient proofs of the antiquity of this institution : 
which therefore deserves not to have the contemptible name of fop- 
pery fixed upon it, 

As to the other blessings, first, St. Paul tells us, " that every 
creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer," and it is the 
practice of all Christian churches to bless the meat upon the table. 
An old Greek ritual, under the name of apostolical constitutions, 
has a blessing of water and oil, that they may " cure diseases, cast 
out devils, and preserve from all dangers," L. 8. c. 29. And does 
not the church of England bless or consecrate her churches before 
any public service is performed in them ? we have a fresh instance 
of this in the late solemn consecration of the church of Greenwich. 
Does she not likewise bless the font in her administration of public 
baptism ? I think she does. For I find this form of blessing used 
by the minister, ' Almighty and everlasting God, regard we beseech 
thee the supplications of thy congregation : sanctify this water to 
the mystical washing away of sin, &c. 

But the ceremony of the king's coronation is the most remark- 
able instance of the church of England's judgment and approbation 
of the blessings so boldly vilified by our Catechist. The history of 
the coronation of king James the second, tells us, p. 91. in the mar- 
gin, that the oil, with which he was anointed, was solemnly conse- 
crated in the morning of the coronation by the dean of Westminster, 
assisted by the prebendaries. And Baker, in the life of king Char- 
les the second, specifies the very form of blessing the royal orna- 
ments thus : ' O God, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, by 
whom kings do reign and law-givers make good laws ; vouchsafe, 
Ave beseech thee, in thy favour to bless this royal ornament — 
Vouchsafe to bless and sanctify this sword, which is hallowed for 
the defence of thy holy church — God, the Crown of the faithful, 
blesa and sanctify this crown, so this thy servant that weareth it may 



72 



OF BEADS, ETC. 



be filled with thy manifold graces— bless and sanctify this tiug'M 
Printed, London, An. 1696, p. 742, 744, 

Here then we have, 1st, meat: 2dly, churches; 3dly, the bap- 
tismal water ; 4thiy, the oil for anointing the king ; 5thly, his 
royal robes ; 6thly, his sword ; Tthly, his ring ; 8thly, his crown $ 
blessed, hallowed, sanctified, and consecrated, according to the 
practice of the church of England. And will the Catechist stig- 
matize these w T ith the character of fopperies ? If he does, he will 
surely pass, even amongst his friends; for a profane derider of re- 
ligion. 

I shall therefore here turn advocate for his church, and admo- 
nish the Catechist, that solemn prayers offered to God for a bene- 
diction on his creatures, are not to be vilified or ridiculed. Now 
all blessings or Consecrations of inanimate things, are nothing else 
but so many forms of prayer, ordained by the church, to implore 
the benediction of God for such or such an end, in the lawful use 
of his creatures. For since they may be either abused, or employed 
for God's honour ; and since whatever is good in itself may lawfully 
be prayed for ; some are blessed, that men may use them as they 
ought : and others, that they may answer those ends, for which the 
prayer in their blessing is offered up to God. And does this de- 
serve to be called foppery ? I hope not unless Atheists and Deists 
are to be our judges. 

SECT. V. 

Of Beads, Spittle, Nunneries, Fish-days, Disciplines, and 
Pilgrimages. 

TO Omit nothing of the scurrilous piece I have now in hand, the 
above-mentioned things are reckoned by the Catechist among the 
vain fopperies (as he calls them) of the church of Rome. I shall 
touch briefly upon each. 

1. Beads. These are of no other use, than to help us to remem- 
ber what prayers we have to say : and where is the absurdity ? 

Aye, but we say ten Ave's for one Pater Noster, I never heard 
that this was required by the terms of our communion. So that if 
the Catechist has but faith enough to say once Hail Mary, he may 
say the Lord's Prayer as often as he pleases. And if Catholics take 
another method, they do not think that the Hail Mary is the better 
prayer of the two : much less do they believe, that the Mother ought 
to be honoured more than the Son. No, they know the first is 
false, and the second blasphemy. What reason can they have ? I 
will tell you some of them. First, because if God be honoured by 
their desiring the prayers of the Blessed Virgin once, he cannot be 
dishonoured by their desiring them ten times. Secondly, because 
the Blessed Virgin's prayers are ten times better than their own. 
Thirdly, because it is much easier to desire to have a share in the 



OF BEADS* ETC 



prayers of another, than io let our hearts keep pace with our words, 
in the most holy and sublime jpetition of our Lord's Prayer : a pray- 
er so truly divine, that to say it five or six times as it ought (I 
mean with those affections of the heart, which it imports) is a task 
great enough for a good Christian at one time of prayer. They 
say then the Hail Mary oftener, not because it is the better prayer, 
but because it is the easier and to be said "frOm the heart, requires 
the less application and bent of the mind. Fourthly, for a more 
frequent exercise of the Catholic faith, humility and prayer to God. 
Of faith, by a repeated invocation to saints ; and by honouring her, 
whom " all generations will call blessed," Luke. i. 48. and whom 
her enemies often vilify. Of humility : for he who desires the 
prayers of another, owns lie is not worthy to pray for himself. Of 
Prayer to God: because the language of the heart is the same, 
whether I say, ' O God, may we have a share in the prayers of the 
Blessed Virgin, now, and at the hour of our death :' or, ' Holy 
Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of 
our death.' 

2. Spittle, it is used by us in the ceremonies of baptism* in imi- 
tation of our Saviour Christ, who with his spittle cured the deaf 
and dumb man, Marks vii 33. and the blind man, Mark, viii. 23. 
And is it a subject of laughter? 

3. Nunneries, these are religious houses, where virgins and wi- 
dows retire from the World, and consecrate themselves to the service 
of God for life. P>ut voluntary obedience, poverty and chastity, 
are it seems virtues, which our Catechist cannot relish. And the 
devil dislikes them as well as he. 

4. Fish-days and disciplines, the former are days of penance and 
humiliation ordained by the church ; the latter are voluntary chas - 
tisements of the body, used by many pious Christians. And if these 
be fopperies, I am sure they are at least, of a very ancient date — 
For St. Paul tells us "that he chastised his bod}', and brought it 
into subjection." 1. Cor. ix. 27. 

5. Pilgrimages, these are pious journeys, which many pious 
Christians undertake, merely upon a motive of devotion. And I 
aee no reason, why journeys of devotion should not bepr eferable to 
those of curiosity and pleasure* Thus St. Helen took a journey to 
Jerusalem, to visit the holy places which Christ had honoured with 
his personal presence, and where he had vouchsafed to accomplish 
the sacred mysteries of our redemption. Thus, likewise, St. Jerom 
w r ent to Bethlehem, to pay his devotions to our Saviour's crib, as 
himself relates, Apol 2 contra Mufin. And St. Austin attests, that 
whole crowds of people came to visit the relics of St. Stephen, 
some of which, were kept in his own diocese. And Almighty God 
was pleased to testify his approbation of this their devotion, by 
numberless miracles related by the same father, L. 22. de Civ. Dei. 
c. 8. So far was venerable antiquity from scoffing these things, or 
calling them fopperies, as some of our adversaries new do ; and 

l/ 



OP THE NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS. 



what 'is very surprising, even those who pretend that the reforma- 
tion only brought religion back to its ancient purity ; whereas, it is 
apparent, from what has been said, that they have'reformed away, 
a great part both of the faith and practice of the primitive times. 



ARTICLE XVI. 

OF THE NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS. 

The sixteenth pretended error of Papists is, their doctrine in Seven 
Sacraments, p*. 22. 

ANSWER. 

An easy way of finding out the true number of sacraments, is to 
consider what this word sacrament means. And for this I am con- 
tent to stand to the definition of the short catechism of the church 
of England, where the questions and answers are as follows. Q. 
" What do you mean by the word sacrament ? A. I mean an out- 
ward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto 
us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the 
same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." Let us then see, whe- 
ther the five sacraments rejected by the Catechist will not stand 
the test of this definition as well as the two he allows of ; that is, 
whether they have not an outward sign and an inward grace of 
God's institution ? 

1. In Confirmation, the Outward sign is the imposition or laying 
on of the bishop's hands : the inward grace is receiving the Holy 
Ghost after baptism, Acts viii. 14. 17- and xix. 6. 

2. In Penance, the inward grace is the remission of sin, and the 
outward sign, is the priest's absolution. St. John, xx. 22, 23. 

3. In Extreme-Unction, the inward grace consists chiefly in a 
special strength to overcome the difficulties and temptations inci- 
dent to our last combat ; and the visible and outward sign, is pray- 
er and oil, with which the sick person is anointed. James, v. 1 4. 

4. In Holy Orders, the outward sign is imposition of hands, &c. 
mentioned by St. Paul, 2. Tim. i. 6. and the inward grace in the 
persons ordained, is the power of administering the sacraments and 
grace to live up to their character. 

5. In Matrimony, the outward signs are the words or tokens ex- 
pressing the mutual consent of the parties ; and a holy union of 
their hearts in perfect love is the inward grace. For it cannot be 
imagined that Christ would confine marriage to one person as he 
does, and that for life (Matt. xix. 6.) without such an allowance of 
grace, as may make the burden supportable. ' Matrimony,' (says 
the church of England in the solemnizing of it) ( is a holy state in- 



@F HEADING THE BIBLE, ETC. 



75 



st! tuted of God, in the time of man's innocency, and consecrated by 
Christ to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and re- 
presented, the spiritual marriage and unity between Christ and his 
church.' It seems then, that Christ has raised it to something above 
what it was before, viz. to be an excellent mystery. This we call a, 
sacrament, and so does St. Paul, Eph. v. 32. Yet our Catechist is 
positive, that there are but two sacraments, viz. Baptism and the 
Lord's supper, p. 22. But the Church of England's catechism is 
not so positive ; for it only says, ' that Christ has only instituted 
two, as generally necessary to salvation ;' which no Koman Catho,-* 
lie denies. For all are not bound to marry ; nor are all bound to 
take Holy Orders. Nay if a baptised infant dies in the state of in- 
nocence, he needs no other sacrament but Baptism to make him 
eternally happy. 

But how does the Catechist prove, that there are but two sacra- 
ments ? The reason he gives is, 'because there are not sufficient 
parts in any of the other live to make them sacraments :* which he 
pretends to prove from the following text : " add thou not unto 
his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar," Prov. 
xxx. 6. But this text has just as much relation to the number of 
sacraments, as it has to the hours of the day, or months of the 
year. However he is so good, as to triflie away but this ona 
text in the present article* 



ARTICLE XVIL 

OF READING THE BIBLE IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 

The seventeenth pretended error of Papists is, that they forbid the 
Bible to be read in, any vulgar tonyue. p. 3. 

ANSWER, 

This is a mistake ;, because the bible is translated into the vulgar 
tongues of all countries, where the Roman Catholic religion is pro- 
fessed ; and I presume translations are made for some use, nor do 
I know any other use they are designed for than that they may be 
read. All then that is forbid is the people's reading them without 
leave. And where is the inconvenience of it ? Can there ever be 
any harm in practising humility, or paying a submission and obe- 
dience to the pastors of the church ? Will the word of God be 
less understood or profit less when it is read with leave than with- 
out it ? I should rather think it profitable that reading it with the 
leave of those, whom God lias appointed to be our guides, will be 
attended with a larger share of his blessing, than when it is read 
independently of their alio wan ee: nay, I fear that they who are 
too proud to ask leave, will not be humble enough to read it with 
the Christian dispositions they ought to have. 



OF HEADING THE BIBLE 



But Iras not every man as much a natural right to read the word 
of God, for the nourishment of his soul, as he has to his meat for 
the nourishment of his body ? And would it not be a tyrannical law 
to forbid men to eat without asking leave? I answer first, the 
parity would hold if it were true, that as meat cannot nourish our 
bodies unless we eat it ourselves ; so the word of God cannot nou-: 
rish our souls unless we read it ourselves ; which I shall shew to 
be a mistake. And therefore though it would be a tyrannical law 
to forbid men to eat without asking leave, it is no tyrannical law 
to forbid them to read the scriptures without a permission from 
their superiors ; especially if reading them be attended (as I shall 
shew it often is) with some degree of danger : and then the case is 
parallel with that of sick persons, who are not allowed to eat meat 
without the approbation of their physicians, because it may be too 
strong a nourishment for them. 

But I answer 2dly, that there are several things to which men 
have a natural right, and yet a restraint may justly and without any 
tyranny be laid upon the use of them by legislative power. As for 
example, all mankind has a natural right to marriage, and yet St. 
Paul forbade widows consecrated to God to marry under pain of 
eternal damnation, 1 Tim. v. 11, 12. As likewise both the first 
and fourth general councils forbid the marriage of bishops and 
priests after their ordination, and several provincial or national 
councils even more ancient than they have done the same. 

But to keep, within the very example of eating proposed in the 
objection, it is certain mankind has equally a natural right to ail 
&orts of meats : yet the primitive Christians were forbid by the 
council of Jerusalem to eat blood and things strangled, Acts xv. 
And was this an unjust or tyrannical encroachment upon their na-- 
tural right ? 

In the like manner the ancient church (for whose discipline 
Protestants pretend to have a great respect) commanded the fasts 
of Lent, Ember-days, and vigils, (still religiously observed by 
the church of Rome) by virtue of which command the faithful are 
deprived not only of the use of flesh, but likewise of the liberty of 
eating more than one full meal a day. And yet they have as much 
a natural right to flesh and more meals than one in the forty days of 
Lent, and other fasting days commanded by the church, as they 
have upon other days. It is therefore a mistake to say, that the 
church's legislative power cannot for just reasons forbid to lay a 
restraint upon the use of diings, to which we have a natural right ; 
and if her exercise of this power be no tyranny in the things I 
have mentioned, I see no reason why her laying a restraint upon 
reading the scriptures in vulgar tongues should be stigmatized with 
that cdious name. 

But do not all Christians stand in need of being nourished with 
the word of God? And how can they be nourished with it unless 



JN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 



they read it ? I answer, all stand most certainly in need of being 
nourished with the word of God : but the people s reading it them- 
selves is neither the only way to have this spiritual nourishment 
conveyed to thero, nor the safest for all. I prove the first from a 
remarkable instance of the iirst Christians converted by the apos- 
tles, who were undoubtedly the best Christians that ever were in 
God's church: and yet they never read, at least that part of the 
word of God, which contains the Christian law, and was writ ex- 
pressly for the instruction of Christians, I mean the New Testa- 
ment, For they could not read it before it was written. Since 
therefore those excellent Christians were undoubtedly nourished 
with the same word of God, as is now delivered to us in those di- 
vine writings, and had the doctrine of the gospel in their hearts, 
without having the scriptures in their hands, it is manifest that 
the want of reading may be effectually supplied by other means, 
mid the word of God conveyed to the people as far as is necessary 
for the spiritual nourishment of their souls, and conduct of the 
lives, without putting the Bible in vulgar languages promiscuously 
into their hands. v 

I add, that there are great numbers of excellent Christians 
amongst the poorer sort, who cannot read at all, yet are not there- 
fore deprived of the word of God as far as it is necessary to nourish 
their souls in solid piety and virtue. Nay, I heartily wish there 
were many such Christians in the world as there are in our English 
monasteries abroad : yet the greatest part of these being ignorant 
of the languages of the countries they live in, cannot read the 
Bible translated into those languages ; neither are they furnished 
with English translations. And how then have they ihewordof God, 
and the true spirit of the gospel communicated to them ? For it 
cannot be doubted, but their souls are nourished with it, and their 
whole lives guided by it. The o^estion is easily answered : they 
receive it partly from the mouth of their pastors, like the primitive 
Christians ; and have besides the help of many pious books written 
by persons filled with the spirit of God, by means whereof they are. 
furnished with all the evangelical maxims that are necessary to form 
their lives after the model of the Gospel ; to inspire them with a, 
hatred to sin, to strengthen their faith, nourish their hope, in-,, 
flame their hearts with the love of God, and encourage them to go 
on perse veringly in all the most difficult and laborious exercises of 
a penetential life. 

It is therefore plain that reading the scriptures is not the only 
way to nourish Christians with the word of God, since there are. 
numberless excellent Christians, who are plentifully supplied with 
this spiritual nourishment another way; and the best Christians that 
ever were in the world, received it from the mouth of their pastors. 

But as putting the scriptures into the hands of the people is nut 
the only way to instruct them either in their faith or morals, so 
neither is it the safest for all : and we need no other proof of this 



78 



OF READING THE BIBLE " 



than the example of millions, who have read them, and continue 
to this day to read them to their own destruction. I shall only in- 
stance in the Quakers, who of all people in the world, apply them-: 
selves most to the reading of scriptures ; nay, there is scarce a 
Quaker woman but who shall outoap the ablest divine of any other 
religion in scripure texts. Yet I think it is very plain, the} 7 are 
the most deluded people upon the face of the earth. And what is 
the source of this their unhappy condition ? it is wholly owing to 
their abuse and misinterpretation of scriptures. Their souls are 
starved and in the midst of darkness, whilst theyhave the bread of 
life, and the light of the gospel in their hands. For though the 
word of God be the bread of life to humble and pious souls, and a 
clear lamp to guide all their steps in the way to salvation, it be- 
comes a mortal poison and source of seduction to such proud spirits, 
as have the presumption to read it with an entire dependence on 
their own judgment and capacity : so that we may truly apply to the 
word of God, what is said of the blessed sacrament, to wit, mors 
est mails vita bonis ; it is life to the good, and death to the proud 
and perverse ; as likewise what Simeon said of Christ himself: viz. 
that " he was set for the fall and rising again (that is the ruin and 
salvation) of many in Israel," Luke ii. 34. The word of God is 
most certainly a source of life and salvation to those, who read it 
with an humble disposition, and make use of the lights they ought 
to read it by ; but the pride and presumption of those, who read it 
without a due submission to the guides of God's appointment has, 
in all ages, made it the occasion of the ruin of numberless souls, 
but never more than in these latter ages, wherein a boundless li^ 
bertyof reading and interpreting the Bible, has produced as many 
religions, as there were anciently god3 amongst the heathens 2 
which fully justifies the church's conduct in laying a restraint upon 
it ; yet so that persons of an approved and solid virtue may not be 
deprived of the benefit of it. 

But is it then possible a Christian should receive any harm by 
reading the word of God ? St. Peter has already answered this, 
question for me. For speaking of St. Paul's epistles, in M which, 
(says he) are some things hard to be understood, which they that 
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other- scrips 
tares unto their own destruction,,' 2. Pet. iii. 16. This is plain. 
However I answer it 2dly, by proposing a question of the same 
nature : Is it then possible a Christian should receive any harm by 
receiving the sacred body and blood of Christ ?■ yes, surely, for " if 
he receives them unworthily, he receives judgment to himself, 1 Cor. 
xi. 27. because there is nothing so holy, but may be abused. It 
is true indeed, the word of God cannot of itself prejudice any one : 
but as a person that eats good meat may hurt himself by receiving it 
into a foul stomach, so may he likewise hurt himself by reading the 
word of God w'th a corrupt heart, 

But will it not then follow, that the blessed sacrament may also lie 



IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 



19 



taken away from the people on account of the frequent abuses and 
prophanations of it? I answer, no. Because there are two material 
disparaties between reading the scriptures and receiving the sacra- 
ment, The first is, that our souls cannot be made partakers of the 
spiritual nourishment or proper virtue of the sacrament, unless we 
receive it, but we may be nourished with the word of God without 
our own reading it, as I have fully shewed. The second is, that 
there is no positive precept obliging the church to put the scrip- 
tures into the hands of the people, but there is a positive precept 
obliging all that are come to the use of reason to receive the sa- 
crament, John vi. 53. And no power upon earth can reverse or 
make void a divine precept, though ever so much abused. 

But do not Papists lay hold of this pretence merely to, lock up the 
word of God from the people, and keep them in the dark ? I an- 
swer, there would be some colour for the objection, if the people 
could not come to such a knowledge of the word of God, as is suf- 
ficient for the conduct of their lives, but by their own reading — 
But I presume, a man that has a light carried before him, may 
see as well by it as if he had it in his own hand. Is a sick-man left 
without proper means of his cure, who receives his prescriptions 
from his physician ? or are the people deprived of the benefit of 
the law, because they do not study it themselves ? now this comes 
fully up to the case in question. For as God has provided the 
people with physicians to direct them in the care of their bodies, and 
with men skilled in the law to assist them in the management of 
their temporal concerns, so has he more effectually appointed 
bishops and pastors to instruct them in their way to salvation. — ■ 
These make it their principal business to study the scriptures, both 
for themselves and the people. Because they are bound as pastors 
to feed the flock ; and dispense to them the bread of life. " Let a 
man (says St. Paul) so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and 
the stewards of the ministers of God, 1 Cor.\x.\. From whom 
then are the people to receive the word of God, but from the mi- 
nisters appointed by God himself? these are the physicians of 
their souls ; these are the lawyers God has given them to interpret 
the evangelical law, by which they are bound to govern their lives. 
And this is so far from locking up the word of God from'the people, 
or keeping them in ignorance, that whoever will but judge ac- 
cording to the dic'ates of reason must acknowledge, that in re- 
lation to many it is fully shewed, and the most advantageous for 
their instruction in the knowledge of it, as far as is necessary for 
the conduct of their lives. 

What! is it reasonable to say, that the word of God is hid from 
the people, because they have their pastors to instruct them in it ? 
are they kept in ignorance, because they have men more learned 
than themselves to be their teachers ? or is the multitude a better 
judge of scripture, and more able to discover the truth by their own 
reading, than those whom God has placed over them for their in- 



80 



OF HEADING THE BIBLE 



struction, and who have spent the best part of their lives in the 
study of it ? 

But is it not to be suspected, that all this is but a pretence, and 
the true reason of not putting the scriptures promiscuously into all 
hands, is to keep the common people from discovering the errors 
and follies of their religion ? this indeed, is the good-natured turn 
some Protestants give to it. But nothing can be more eminently 
absurd. Because, if there were any solid ground to fear the making 
any such discovery, I ask, whether of the two would be best able 
and most likely to do it, the learned or unlearned? surely the 
learned Yet these have no restraint laid upon them, for fear of 
their making this discovery; and is it not then ridiculous to 
say, that the reason why tradesmen and mechanics, and other per- 
sons of no learning, have this restraint laid upon them, is to keep 
them from discovering the errors and follies of their religion ? a 
man must be strangely blinded with prejudice not to seethe ab- 
surdity of this Calumny. Nor can it possibly be maintained without 
supposing that the generality of Papists, as soon as they beoome 
learned men, turn such profligate villains, that though they clearly 
see the errors and follies of their religion in the scriptures, they 
tun on headlong to perdition, and suffer their dearest friends and 
relations to do the same, ra her than make a discovery of <hem. 
Nay, it must be supposed, that, all the learned men of Christen- 
dom were guilty of «his villainy for many ages togeiher : which un- 
charitable sapposi ion, though the Ca echistmay be capable of it, 
will not, I hope, be en^er-amed by many. 

But let us hear what he says for himself. lie tells us "the scrip- 
tures were written for the use of the common people, and therefore 
should be translated into known tongues." p. 4. Well, if thai will 
satisfy him, they are translated into all known tongues, and i< can- 
no?, be doubted but they were written for all. But the question is, 
whether it may not be safer and more profitable for many to have 
them read and explained »o ihem by their pas' ors, than to have them 
in their own hands to interpret them according to the caprice of 
their own private judgment ? We see wha:. a fruitful spawn of jar- 
ring secis ignorance has produced in Germany, England, and Hol- 
land, by the U3e of the bible in the vulgar tongue. Dr. Walton, 
a learned Pro'estan^ complains with a great deal of reason of their 
prodigious increase. And probably the sun has not yet seen one 
half of their number. For errors have no end. 

However the Carechist attacks us with a formidable host of 
seven serip'ural texts. But as their number makes their whole 
s-rengih, when they are singled out one by one their weakness will 
appear. 

His first text from Deuteronomy xxxi. 11. is most s'rangely wide 
from the purpose. It contains a command, which Moses laid upon 
the sons and priests of Levi (9.) that at the end of every seven 
years, in the solemnity of iheyear of release (10.) the law r (contained 



IX THE VULGAR TONGUE. 



in the book of Deuteronomy) should be read before all Israel in 
their hearing, (11.) and this latter scrap of the text is brought by 
him for a proof, that the people ought to have the scriptures put 
into their own hands, which is most wonderfully to the purpose. 

A second text from Acts xv. 21, is still less to the purpose tlian 
the former. They are St.. James's words in the council of Jeru- 
salem, saying, " that Moses, in old times, has in every city them 
that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day." 
Now what a strange consequence is this : some part of the Mosaiac 
law was read to the Jews on every Sabbath day, therefore the 
people ought to have the scriptures put into their own hands ! 

A third text is taken from Apoc. i. 3. where St. John writes 
thus : " blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of 
this prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein!" But 
are not they who hear, pronounced blessed in this text as well as 
tHey who read ? Yes, surely. Heading therefore, is not absolutely 
necessary ; but the principal blessing is doubtless pronounced on 
those, who keep the things that are written ; for without keeping 
neither reading nor hearing will avail them any thing, and they who 
hear the things written may keep them as well as they that read 
them. 

His fourth text is this : " whereby when ye read, ye may under- 
stand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, Epk. iii, 4. Whence 
it can only be concluded, that St. Paul doubted not but the Ephe- 
sians would read the epistles he wrote to them. And does any 
man doubt of it ? 

His fifth text is as follows : " when this epistle is read among 
you, cause it that it be read also in the church of the Laodicians, 
and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea, CoL iy. 16. Now 
this epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians was wiitten principally to 
serve as an antidote against the poisonous doctrines spread amongst 
them by some seducers, But as some of the Laodicians, their near 
neighbours, had partaken of the infection, the apostles ordered his 
epistles to be also read in the church of Laodicea, However, since 
it is impossible that the copy he sent them should immediately be 
put into the hands of every body, his ordering it to be read among 
them could not mean that every body should read it, but that their 
pastors (of which I presume they were not destitute) should read 
it to their respective congregations, and explain it to them if any 
difficulty should occur. And is it not likewise the practice in our 
parish-churches upon Sundays and holy days, to explain some part 
of the word of God to the people ? 

This answers his sixth text ; to wit, " I charge you by the Lord 
that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren," 1 Thes. v. 27, 
For all that follows from it is, that St. Paul undoubtedly intended 
that his epistles should be read to those, for whose instruction they 
were expressly written ; which the Catechist needed not to have 
informed us of. 

M 



OF READING THE BIBLE 



His seventh text is ; " search the scriptures : for in them ye 
think ye have eternal life," John v. 39« It is very sure the Jews 
were not mistaken in thinking, that eternal life was to be found in 
the scriptures, and yet they found it not, because adhering slavish- 
ly to the letter (which killeth according to St. Paul) they were 
■wholly ignorant of the true spirit of the scriptures, which alone 
gives life : and so, instead of finding eternal life in the scriptures, 
they gained to themselves eternal death, by reading them with 
perverse and corrupt hearts, asriiany do to this .very day. 

Bat do not these words, search the scriptures, contain a positive 
command ? I answer first,- that it is Very doubtful whether they be 
a true translation ; for both the Greek and Latin may be faithfully 
Englished thus. You search the scriptures. Nay, several 
ancient fathers Understood them so ; as Estius, a learned commen* 
tator observes ; and so lio consequence can be drawn from them. 

But, i answer idly, that allowing of the English translation, 
they contain no command any more, than if I, disputing against a 
Protestant, should say to him, examine your own Bible, and you 
will find this or that point of Catholic doctrine clearly taught in it. 
Now surely no man will say, that this would be commanding my 
Protestant adversary to read and examine the Bible, but only re- 
ferring him to it for a proof of the Catholic doctrine. In like 
manner, the obvious and natural meaning of Christ's saying to the 
Jews, search the scriptures, can be no other than his referringthem 
to the testimony of their own scriptures for proof of the capital 
point he was then preaching to them. Nay, t dare appeal to the 
judgment of any intelligent Protestant, whether this be not per- 
fectly consonant to the whole context of the chapter, from whence 
the aforesaid text is taken ? 

I conclude from what has been said, that there is no law, either 
natural or divine, that obliges the church to put the scriptures pro- 
miscuously into the hands of all sorts of persons : and if there be 
no such law, it is manifest the church has fall power and authority 
to make what regulations she judges most conducing to the good 
of soul Si 

It is tru£ that several ancient fathers, and particularly St. Chrys- 
ostom, recommended the reading of scriptures to persons of all 
states and conditions ; nay, exhorted them earnestly to it : and it 
cannot be doubted but a true zeal for the good of souls prompted 
them to it. But as laws, though ever so good in themselves, are 
not so respectively to ali times or places, so neither are all prac- 
tices, though authorised by the recommendation of the greatest 
men, because they may be excellently good at one time, and un- 
seasonable at another. And therefore, as it would be a presumption 
to censure those fathers, for promoting the general reading of 
scriptures in their times, so I cannot give a softer name to the 
clamours of Protestants against the conduct of the church, in laying 
a restraint in after-times upon the liberty formerly granted. Be- 



OF F.RAYERS, ETC 



S3 



cause there being no law, either natural or divine, commanding 
the one or prohibiting the other, it is but equitable to judge her pas- 
tors, who are now animated with, the same spirit apd zeal for the good 
of souls under their charge as in, former times ; though they differ 
from them in their measures. In a word, although the faith, and 
spirit of the church be unalterable, her discipline may vary ac- 
cording to the exigencies of times, as it lias done in many other 
instances. 



ARTICLE XVIII. 

OF PRAYERS IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 

Tlie eighteenth pretended error of Papists is, their preaching and 
•praying in an unknown tongue, p. 17. 

ANSWER. 

Preaching in an, unknown tongue is a strange thing indeed. But 
surety the CatechTst knew not y^hat he said, when he accused us of 
it. As to what he calls praying in an unknown tongue, it seems to 
me very strange, that after the experience of near one thousand five 
hundred years, it should be brought into question, whether the 
Catholic church was wise enough to, know, what language to say 
her public prayers in ? and what is still more surprising, that lay- 
men or private pastors should first by their own authority, presume 
to break through a law, which they found, established by the prac- 
tice of the whole Christian church, and afterwards pretend to jus- 
tify their separation by it, as if a matter of discipline (supposing 
they changed it for the better) could wipe off the guilt of schism ? 

But (says the Catechist) saying public prayers in a tongue not 
understood by the common people, is against the custom of the 
primitive church. I answer, 1st, that eating blood, and things 
strangled, is also against the custom of the primitive church ; nay, 
against the express command of the apostles assembled in council 
at Jerusalem, Acts xv. But is it therefore unlawful now ? I hope 
not : because though the faith of the church be unalterable, her 
discipline may be changed, provided it be done in a canonical way, 
and by lawful authority. 

I answer, 2dly, that the church -service in t^e primitive times 
was performed in the very same language which is used at present. 
And if it be not as well understood as formerly^ it if not because 
the church has made any alteration in her language, but because 
all vulgar tongues are in a perpetual change. When she prcftthes 
to the people, sho does it in their language : but w^ien she prays to 
God for them, she takes the liberty of doing it in that tongue, m 



84 



Or PRAYERS 



which her public service has been offered to God in all ages ever 
since the apostles : that so there may not only bean uniformity in 
the divine service, wherever it is performed, though in the most 
distant countries ; but that such priests or bishops, as are obliged 
to travel abroad, may be as capable of performing their functions 
in foreign countries, as at home, Nor is the method peculiar to 
the Catholic church. All the oriental schismatics, how different 
soever, as Greeks, Ethiopians, Indians, Muscovites, &c, say Mass. 
But I do not find, that any of them do it in the vulgar languages. 
The Greeks use the liturgies, which (according to their tradition) 
were made by St. Chrysostom and St. Basil ; that is, in the old 
Greek ; of which the common people, as Mr. Brerewood in his en- 
quiries says, understand little or nothing, Ch. 2. p. 12. The Ethio- 
pians and Armenians say Mass in the old Ethiopian and Armenian 
tongue, which none but scholars understand ; P. Sim. Crit. p. 7. 
The Syrians, Indians, and Egyptians, sa} r Mass in Syriac, though 
Arabic be their vulgar language ; as it is the Melchites and Geor- 
gians, who yet say Mass in Greek ; which the Muscovites also do, 
though it be not ihe language of the people, who speak nothing but 
a kind of Sclavonian. So that those who declaim so violently 
against their mother-church, for not having the public service in 
the vulgar tongue, have the universal practice of Christendom 
against them. And it is very remarkable, that no nation in the 
world, upon its first conversion to Christianity, ever made any 
difficulty to submit to this part of the church's discipline: so fully 
were they convinced of the reasonableness of it. But the reformers 
had another view ; their business was to work the populace into an 
easy compliance with their designs. And to be sure a liturgy in 
their own mother-tongue, was so popular a condescension, as 
could not fail of working its desired effect. 

But has not every national church an indisputable right to re- 
gulate and reform its own discipline as it thinks proper ? I answer, 
that no less authority can change laws, than that which makes 
them ; and therefore laws made by the authority of the whole 
church, can only be changed or resumed by the same legislative 
power ? hence it is, that though every national church may have a 
right to regulate its own discipline, in such things as are not con- 
trary to any ecclesiastical constitution of the universal church, yet 
no national church can have a right to break in upon laws' estab- 
lished by and for the church in general. Eor these, when once re- 
ceived by common consent, are binding every where, until they 
are repealed by the same power that made them. Nay, if it were 
not so, every particular parish might reform away the ecclesiastical 
laws of its diocese, and every diocese those of its national church : 
conscience at least would not restrain them from doing it ; and so 
no church-laws would be binding in the court of conscience, since 
net onl$* every nation, but every diocese and parish, might reform 
regulate their own discipline, just as they pleased: and I see 



IN AS UNKNOWN TONGUE. 



85 



no reason, why every private family, nay, every individu il person, 
might not claim the same right. 

This shews, that the iirst reformers acted uncanonieally, and ex- 
ceeded i heir lawful power, when they pretended to reform the li- 
turgy, which had not been introduced or established by a mere na- 
tional law, but by a superior spiritual authority, which they them- 
selves had acknowledged for several years, and had been acknow- 
ledged by the whole nation for nine hundred } T ears together. And 
if such an authority can be thrown off at pleasure, we must strike 
out of the Bible this express command of St* Paul, " let every soul 
be subject to higher power," Mom. xiii, 1. and conclude he was 
grievously mistaken in saying, " that they who resist power, resist 
God, and shall receive damnation to themselves," yep. 2. 

However the Cateckist quotes against us, St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 
16, 23. But whoever will but read that whole chapter with at-, 
tentiou, will easily see that St. Paul speaks not a word in it of any 
liturgy, or set form of prayer, but only of sudden extemporary ex- 
hortations and prayers, which even laypersons, by a miraculous 
gift of unknown tongues, uttered to the people in public assemblies 
without any interpretation of what they say, And in reference to 
these, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, **1. That speaking thus in 
an unknown tongue, without any interpreter does not edify the 
church. 2. That the clerk cannot say Amen to these prayers. 
And 3dly. That if any use this gift it must be interpreted." 

These are the chief contents of that chapter, which is so ill ob- 
jected against our having the Mass in the Latin tongue. For 1st, 
the Mass is not an exhortation to the people, but a sacrifice offered 
for the people to God, by the ministry of the priest. 2dly, the 
Mass is translated into vulgar languages, as likewise our vespers, 
litanies,, exequies, and other public devotions : and so the people 
are not destitute of an interpreter, which St. Paul principally in- 
sists upon. 3dly, as to those who cannot read, even these do not 
want an interpreter, if they have but eyes to see ;, because the Mass 
being a sacrifice, performed with many outward ceremonies, is an 
ac ion rather than prayer; and actions are known by seeing, as 
words are by hearing. 

In effect, the people know that the mysteries of our Saviour's 
passion are represented in the several parts of the Mass ; and if 
they can but bring their hearts, filled with faith, love, repentance, 
and other such acts of devotion, there is no need of understanding 
the words ; for the sight is as much as is necessary : however since, 
they are assured that the priest prays for them, they can have no 
difficulty to say Amen to all his prayers. I add that Latin, which 
is the common language of scholars, is not in the sense of St. Paul 
an unknown tongue. For he wrote to the Romans in Greek, as 
St. Gerom observes, Ep. 123, and all learned Protestants will 
easily grant, either then he wrote to them in an unknown tongui* 



86 



OF INDULGENCES. 



which is highly absurd, or the common language of the learned is 

not to be accounted such. 



ARTICLE XI X. 

OF INDULGENCES. 

The nineteenth pretended error of Papists is, their doctrine o f In- 
dulge tices ; to which he adds, that it is the belief of Protestants, 
that Papal indulgences are the worst of cheats, and abominable 
i; juries to Christ and Christians, p. 

ANSWER, 

These are hard words indeed", But I should wrong the Catechist 
to expect justice or good manners of him towards Papists, I shall 
however he so charitable to him, as to do my best to disabuse him, 
by letting him know both what indulgences are, and what they are 
not. First, then, indulgences are not a license to commit sins, 
as some Protestant authors have most falsely asserted. Secondly, 
they are not a pardon of sins past, which are only remitted by the 
sacrament of penance and contrition, What are they then ? I an- 
swer, they are a release of temporal punishment due to sins re- 
pented of, confessed, and already pardoned as to the guilt. 

The bishop of Meaux, in his exposition of the Christian doc- 
trine, translated into English, An. 1672, p. 63. gives the follow- 
ing account of them. ' When the church imposes upon sinners, 
painful and laborious works, and they undergo them with humility, 
this is called satisfaction. A.nd when, regarding the favour of the 
penitents, or some other good works which she has prescribed them, 
she pardons some part of the pain due to them, this is called in- 
dulgence:' of which the council of Trent has only defined this: 
' That the power to grant them has been given to the church by 
Jesus Christ, and that the right use of them is very beneficial:' Sess. 
25. de Indulg. 

This power granted to the church by Christ, was exercised by 
St. Paul in relation to the incestuous Corinthian, whom he had 
put under penance ; but upon request of the Corinthians, who in- 
terceded for him, and least too long a punishment should drive him 
to despair, he released a part of it by the authority he had from 
Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. xi. 6, 7, 10. This power was also exercised 
by the primitive bishops, in favour of public penitents. For they 
often shortened the time of their penance upon the intercession of 
the holy confessors, who were in prison, and had suffered great tor- 
ments for the faith of Christ. I presume the Catechist was not so 
well versed in this subject, as to know these things. For had he 
known them, he would perhaps have been more moderate than to 



OF INDULGENCS. 



87 



call Papal indulgences the worst of cheats, and abominable injuries 
to Christ and Christians* 

But let us hear his proofs. The first is, because (says he) < there 
is no pardon of sin, but by the mercy of God through the blood of 
Christ/ Rom. v. 1 and Eph. i. 7. All this is very orthodox, but 
nothing to the purpose \ because indulgences are not a pardon of 
sins, but a release of temporal punishments due to them. And even 
this is not granted but by the power given to the church, by Jesus 
Christ, and through his sacred blood and the mercies of God. 

His second proof is, because ihere is no such thing in scripture, 
that the merits of one saint should be able to make satisfaction for 
the sins of another. But I hope it is plain in scripture, that the 
merits of Jesus Christ are able to make satisfaction for the sins even 
of all mankind, and all indulgences have their validity from his in- 
finite merits. However I answer it is very plain in scripture, that 
the prayers of saints have often appeased God's wrath, and stopped 
his hand from punishing the sins of others so severely, as they had 
deserved ; and it cannot be doubted, but it was the faith and virtu- 
ous behaviour of those saints t hat rendered their prayers so availa- 
ble in the sight of God. Thus God Almighty sent Eliphaz to his 
servant Job, to be prayed for by him, with his assurance, " for him 

will I accept, lest I deal with you after your folly," Job. xiii. 8 

Thus likewise, when God was grieviously offended at the mutiny of 
the Israelites against Moses, he had resolved to send a plague 
amongst them to destroy them, he was appeased upon the earnest 
supplication of Moses, and answered him, " I have pardoned tl era 
according to thy word," Num. xiv. 20, to wit, the temporal punish- 
ment he had designed to inflict upon them 

The Catechist's third and last proof is, because (says he) Christ 
needed not any merits of saints to be added to his satisfaction — 
This is most certainly true, because the satisfaction Christ has made 
for us is of an infinite value: and whatever is infinite cannot need 
any thing to be added to it. But will the Catechist infer from 
thence, that therefore we need not do penancefor our sins, nor receive 
the sufferings God sends us in the spirit of penance? if he does, he gives 
the lie to the word of God in a thousand places. Nay, there is not a 
truth more certain, than that we are bound to punish our sins, and do 
penance for them, notwithstanding the infinite satisfaction made by 
Christ. 

But why are we bound to do this, if Christ has fully satisfied the 
divine justice, and stands in no need of having our satisfaction join- 
ed to his ? The reason is, because Christ having purchased an abso- 
lute dominion over us with the infinite price of his blood, it cannot 
be disputed but he may lay what terms or conditions he pleases up- 
on us as means, without which the price he has paid down shall not 
be applied to us. And therefore, though it be certainly true, that 
having satisfied superabundantly for us, he might have applied that 
satisfaction to us without subjecting us to any penal works or tern- 



S3 



OF MERITS- 



poral sufferings, after the guilt of sin, toget her with its eternal pun- 
ishment, was remitted* yet it pleased his infinite wisdom, both for 
our greater good and the manifestation of his justice as well as mer- 
cy, to establish things upon another footing, by changing the eternal 
punishment into a temporal one, and obliging us to purchase the 
fruits and application of his infinite satisfaction by doing worthy 
fruits of penance, and submitting humbly and patiently to the suf- 
ferings he shall think fit to lay upon us. And it is this we call sa- 
tisfaction, which (to express myself in the very words of the bishop 
of Meaux, p. 68) 4 is in effect bat an application of the infinite satis- 
faction made by Jesus Christ/ whether to ourselves or others. 

Whence it follows, that though Christ needs not. our sufferings 
or penal works to be added to his satisfaction, be requires them of 
us. And unless we submit to the laws he has thought lit to impose 
upon us, we render ourselves unworthy of becoming partakers of 
the happiness, he has purchased for us. 



ARTICLE XX. 

OF MERITS. 

The twentieth pretended error of Papists is. tlie doctrine of 
Merits, p. 14. 

ANSWER. 

This is a dispute merely about a word ; and I dare confidently 
say the thing we really mean by it is so uncontestable a truth, thai; 
no man who pretends to reason and religion, can deny it. Our 
doctrine then of merit is this. 

1. That no man can be justified but by the grace of God through 
Jesus Christ ; and that only those are justified, to whom the mer- 
its of his passion are communicated. 

2. That sin is forgiven us by the pure mercy of God through 
Jesus Christ, without any merit or desert on our side. 

3. That none of the acts, which in the conversion of a sinner pre- 
cede his justification, whether they be faith or good works, can 
merit this grace. 

4. That good works after justification are not equal to the 
reward of future happiness; and that they are not accept- 
able to God, but as they proceed from the grace, and derive their 
value from the merits of Jesus Christ. 

5. That we can do nothing of ourselves in order to salvation, 
nor even have a good thought. 

6. That there is no merit but what is a gift of God through Jesus 
Christ, and of which no man can glory. Whence it follows (as the 
council of Trent speaks with St. Austin) that when God crowns 
our merits, he only crowns his own gifts. 



Ot MERITS. 



89 



7. That God has promised eternal life as a reward to those who 
serve him faithfully in this life : according to these words of St. 
James : " blessed is the man that endureth temptation, for when he 
is tried he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has pro- 
mised to them that love him," James L 12. 

8. That this promise contains a covenant, or bargain between 
God and man ; whereby it is stipulated, that such and such condi- 
tions shall be performed on the part of man ; and that when these 
conditions are performed, God, whose word is the strongest securi- 
ty a man can have, will bestow eternal life upon him. This is God's 
covenant with man ; and it follows plainly from it, that our perform- 
ing the conditions imposed upon us, gives us a title to the reward 
promised upon those conditions ; and this is precisely our meaning 
of what we call the merit of eternal life. 

But since our works are not equal to the rewards, how can we be 
said to merit or deserve it ? I answer, our Works are certainly un- 
equal to the reward : nay, though we did ten thousand times more, 
they would still fall short of it ; because God has been so bountiful 
as to promise us a reward infinitely surpassing our works. But 
still it is a reward, and a reward promised upon such conditions as 
he was pleased to impose. And if God's sacred promise be sufficient 
to ground a sure and just title, they who perform the conditions, 
upon which Heaven is promised, have the sure and just title to it 
that a man can have to any thing. 

I shall propose a familiar example to explain myself: suppose a 
person of a generous temper should pro-mise me a thousand pounds 
for a service not worth the tenth part of it, though such a promise 
would be an effect of pure generosity, because no man is bound to 
reward a service beyond its full value ; yet, upon my performance 
of the service stipulated, I should have as just a claim to the whole 
sum, by virtue of his promise, as if I had performed a service equi- 
valent to it in all respects. 

Now this is a true representation of our case in reference to 
Almighty God. For though his promise of eternal life to such as 
serve him faithfully was an act of pure bounty, as exceeding infinite- 
ly all the service we can render him, yet when we have served him 
according to the conditions stipulated, it is but common sense to 
say "vve have a title to the promised reward, not in regard of our 
works considered in themselves, but in virtue of his promise. All 
which is fully declared by the council of Trent in the following 
words : 'to those who place their confidence in God, and continue 
in the practice of good works, eternal life ought to be proposed, both 
as a grace mercifully promised to the children of God through Jesus 
Christ, and as a reward faithfully to be rendered by virtue of that 
promise to their good works and merits.' Sess. 6. C. 16. 

After this there can be no need of answering the Catechist's ob- 
jections. Yet I shall say a word or two to what is most material. 

His first text, to the best of my judgment, proves very clearly the 

N 



90 



OF MERITS. 



doctrine of merits. It is this, " unto thee O Lord belongeth mercy, 
for thou renderest to every man according to his works," Psal. Ixii. 
12, Whence I argue thus : since it is most certain that God will 
render to every man, that is, reward every man according to his 
works, it follows, that as hell-fire will be the jnst reward of evil 
works, so eternal life will be the just reward of good works in virtue 
of the covenant God has made with men. Because as he has threat- 
ened the one, so has he promised the other; and God is as just to 
his promises as to his threats-. 

His second text is, " if by grace, then it is no more of works, 
otherwise grace is no more grace ;" Rom. xi. 6. I answer, the apos- 
tle's intent in these words was to convince the converted Jews at 
Rome, that their election to the faith of Christ was not owing to 
their preceding works Under the law, but purely to the grace of 
Jesus Christ. And will the Catechist infer from thence, that after 
their conversion to the faith they were not bound to secure their 
salvation by the practice of good works ? or that these are not con- 
ducing to salvation? if he does, he contradicts these words of 
Christ, " if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,*' Mutt. 
xix. 17. As likewise those of St. Paul, " Henceforth there is laid 
up for me a crown of Justice, which God the just judge will give 
me at that day," 2 Tim. iv. 8. 

His third text is, " not by works of righteousness which we have 
done, but according to his mercy he saved us," Tit. iii. 5. I answer: 
St. Paul's words to Titus, if quoted fully at length, explain them- 
selves : they are thus ; " but after the kindness and love of God 
our Saviour towards man appeared, not by the works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us 
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour :" 
whence it appears, that St. Paul speaks here of the first grace of 
justification by baptism, which no one can merit. Because the hap- 
py state of being justified is itself one of the conditions requisite 
for merit : whence it follows, that though it be true that we are 
saved or damned according to our works, it is likewise true that we 
are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ, which alone can make our 
works be eonducting to salvation. 

His fourth is, " hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought 
unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. i. 13. whence 
the Catechist concludes, that salvation is a pure grace. I answer, 
it is both a grace and a debt : it is a debt in consequence or by vir- 
tue of God's promise ; and it is a grace, 1st, because God was not 
bound to make us any such promise. 2dly, Because our very merits 
are his gifts. ' Eternal life/ says St. Angustin, < is called the gift 
of God, not because it is not given to merits, but because the merits 
themselves to which it is given are likewise his gift.' Ep. 105. ad 
Sixtum Cap. 5. 

The fifth is, " what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? Now 



ME1UTS, 



if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not re- 
ceived it," 1 Cor. iv. 7. Very right. Because whatever virtue er 
good we practise is not only the gift of God, but derives all the me- 
rit it has from the grace and merits of Jesus Christ ; and therefoie 
we have no reason to glory in any thing. 

The sixth is, " ye are not your own," 1. Cor. vi. 19. Who 
doubts it ? But I see no other consequence to be drawn from this 
text, than that our very merits are the gifts of God, and that we are 
bound to employ our whole lives in his service. 

The seventh is, " it is God worketh in you both to will and to do 
of his good pleasure," Pkil. ii. 13. This again is without all dispute ; 
because without the help of his grace we can do nothing in order 
to salvatian, nor perform the duties, by which eternal life is to be 
merited. 

But now comes the terrible text,. " When you have done all you 
can, say that ye are unprofitable servants : we have done that which 
was our duty to do," Luke xvi*. 10. 

I venture however to answer, that though we be unprofitable ser- 
vants we still are servants, and work for wages ; and the w r ages 
promised us is eternal life. 

But why are we unprofitable servants, even when w r e have done 
all w r e are commanded ? The reason is plain ; because we are 
wholly unprofitable to God, who receives no profit by our services 
or good works. Neither does he stand in need of his servants, but 
his servants stand in need of him. Yet since we are his servants, 
when we have done all we are commanded, we have a title to the 
w;ages he has promised. For a covenant, contract, or bargain holds 
between God and man, as well as between man and man ; and God, 
who is just, will most certainly pay us our wages according to the 
works we have done, because " He will render to every man accord- 
ing to his deeds," Matt. xvi. 27- 

But we are over and above unprofitable servants in another sense, 
even when we have done all we are commanded. 1. In relation to 
ourselves, because if we had served God millions of years, the re- 
ward of et ernal life would not be due, unless he had mercifully en- 
gaged his word for it : and 2dly, in relation to God ; because " we 
are insufficient of ourselves even to think any thing as ourselves, 
but our sufficiency is of God," 2 Cor. iii. 5. So that w r e can do no- 
thing of whafc we are commanded in order to salvation, unless we 
be enabled by God's grace to do it. And can any thing be more 
unprofitable than a servant that can do nothing without the help of 
his master ? 



92 



OF WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 



ARTICLE XXI. 

OF WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 

The twenty-first pretended error of Papists is, their works of 
Supererogation. 

ANSWER. 

This too is only a trifling question about a word. For we do not 
mean by it that we do our whole duty and more, since " we all fail 
in many things," James iii. 2. But the only thing meant by it is, 
to wit, that though we all in many things come short of our duty, 
and do much less than God commands, yet every good action in 
particular is not commanded. And of this we have in the scripture 
several undeniable instances. " He that gives his virgin in mar- 
riage, does we 1 : aud he that gives her not in marriage, does bet- 
ter," 1. Cor. vii. 38, That which St. Paul calls better is doubtless 
good ; but if it were commanded, it would be a sin to do otherwise. 
And if we believe St. Paul, he that does otherwise does well. He 
says in the same chapter, " art thou loosed from a wife ? Seek not 
a wife," i\ 2J. This is only a counsel not a precept ; for the words 
inmediately following are these "but if thou marry thou hast 44 not 
sinned." And to act against a precept is doubtless a sin. 

St, Luke tells us of the first Christians. That, "as many as 
were possessors of lands or houses, sold them and brought the prices 
of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the feet of the 
apostles, to be distributed to every one as he had need ;" Acts iv. 
34, 35. This was certainly a good action. But if the Cateehist 
lias either houses or lands of his own, I will venture fifty to one, that 
iris relfgion will not oblige him to follow the example. And what 
is this but to grant, that every good action in particular is not com- 
ma-ndecH' So that whenever tve do any thing we are not absolutely 
bound to do, this we call a work of supererogation : and if the Cate- 
chist can furnish me with a more proper word to express this truth, 
I promise him to make use of it hereafter, 

ARTICLE XXII. 

OF JUSTIFICATION. 

The twenty-second pretended error of Papists is, their corrupting 
the doctrine of justification : then he sets down the two following 
questions and answers. Q. Wherein do they corrupt doctrine of 
justification ? A. They tell us we must be justified by our own 
righteousness, a*id that a perfect righteousness is within us. Q> 
What mean they by a perfect rigltteousness f A. Any degree of 
charity is their perfect righteousness, p. If). 

ANSWER. 

«ould wish tke Cateehist hud studied our divinity a little better. 



OF JUSTIFICATION. 



93 



or would learn to speak truth ; for there is not a true word in what 
he has said. 

First, it is a fundamental article of our faith, that no man is jus-« 
tified, but by the pure mercy and, grace of God, through the blood 
of Jesus Christ, as I have abundantly inculcated in the 20th article 
concerning merits. What therefore the Catechist says in his an- 
swer to the first question, viz. That it is our doctrine, that we are 
justified by our own righteousness, is no better than calumny ; and 
he might have saved himself the trouble of transcribing four long 
texts to prove, that w:e are justified freely by the grace of God. For 
they only serve to establish our doctrine, 

2dly. We hold, that justice is not perfect in this life, because 
"the flesh lusteth against the spirit, Gal. v. 17. and ** in many 
things we all offend," Jaqies iii. 2. So that although the sancti- 
fying grace, we receive in baptism, and recover by the sacrament 
of penance, renders the soul acceptable to God, and entitles us to, 
eternal bliss ; yet since concupiscence, which is the fuel of sin, re- 
mains within us, even they who are the adoptive children of God by 
grace, continue under great weakness and many imperfections ; in 
so much, that all pious souls are continually crying to God with the 
Psalmist, " wash me still more from my iniquity, and cleanse me 
from my sin," Psal. li. 3. And indeed tl\e principal business a 
Christian has upon his hands in this life, is to use serious endea- 
vours to perfect himself still more and more by prayer, spiritual, 
reading, frequenting the sacraments, and other such means as God 
has appointed for that end. It is therefore a mistake to say it is 
our doctrine, that there is a perfect righteousness within us, and 
that any degree of charity is this perfect righteousnesss ; for if we 
thought ourselves to have a perfect righteousness, all endeavours 
used by us to approach still nearer to it, would be useless and 
unnecessary. 

We hold indeed, that the justice or righteousness we receive by 
baptism or penance, is not a mere external imputation: of the right- 
eousness of Christ to them that are justified, which the Catechist 
calls Protestant doctrine ; and it may be so for ought I know. But 
the sanctification of a sinner in scripture language is his justifica- 
tion ; and that a soul is inwardly sanctified, when habitually en- 
dued with the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity, is a 
truth so evident, that to doubt of it would be to question the com- 
mon sense of mankind. For how is it possible, a man should from 
a son of wrath, become the adoptive son of God and co-heir of 
Christ, without any manner of change made within him ? How can 
a soul, that is hateful to God by sin, become acceptable to, him by 
grace, and yet remain in statu quo, without change or alteration? 
this is a perfect riddle. 

It is true the Psalmist says : " blessed is the man unto whom, the 
Lord imputeth not iniquity," Psal. xxxji. 2. Because Almighty 
God imputes not to a man, the sins he has forgiven. Therefore the 



94 



OF ASSURANCE, 



same Psalmist says, "as far as the east is from the west, so far has 
he removed our transgressions from us, Psal. ciii. 12. It follows 
then, that there is a change made in the soul, because the sin she 
was guilty of is removed from her. She is defiled so long as her 
sins remain unpardoned ; hut as soon as they are pardoned, she is 
adorned with grace, and justice or righteousness enters into their 
place- And does not this make an inward change ? 

It is true again, the Psalmist pronounces him blessed? " whose 
sins are covered, " Psal. xxxii. 1, But how are they covered ? lie 
explains himself in the same verse, w blessed is he whose transgres* 
sion is forgiven." For sins are the wounds of our souls, and God's 
pardon is their cure ; but no wound is cured by being only covered. 
Therefore when our sins are cured or pardoned., there is a change 
made in our souls ; and it is made by the infusion of sanctifying grace. 

Hence the Psalmist says, "create in me a clean heart, O God, 
and renew a right spirit within me, Psal. li. 10.* And Almighty 
God speaks thus by the mouth of Ezechiel> xxxvi. 26. " A new 
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you:" 
which St. Paul calls, " a new creature,' Gal. vi. 27. Andhe tells us, 
Rom, v. 5 That " the love of God is shed abroad within our hearts 
by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." It is therefore plain, 
that the righteousness which renders us acceptable to God, is truly 
within us, and not a mere external imputation of the righteousness 
of Christ. 



ARTICLE XXIIL 

OF ASSURANCE. 

The twenty-third pretended error of Papists is, their denying the 
dootrine of assurance, p. 21. Then he puts the two following 
questions with their answers. Q. What say the Papists of it ? 
A. That a believer's assurance of the pardon of his sins, is a vain 
ungodly confidence. Q. What is the Protestant's belief in this 
matter ? A.. That it is not only our privilege that we may, but 
our duty to labour after assurance, that our sins are pardoned, 
p. 21. 

ANSWER. 

It is our doctrine, that no man, without a special revelation from 
God, can have an absolute and infallible assurance, that all his past 
sins are forgiven ; and the doctrine contrary to it can be nothing 
else but the fruit of a damnable presumption, the height of enthusi- 
asm, and a mere spiritual madness If Job, David, and St. Paul, 
bad that assurance, they had it by revelation, which therefore can 
* Douay— Psai. 1. 10. 



OP CELIBACY, ETC. 



95 



be no precedent to draw a consequence from, in reference to the 
ordinary rank of Christians. Nay, St. Paul exhorts all to " work 
out their salvation in fear and trembling," Phil. ii. 12. He does 
not mean an anxious fear, which as St. John says is expelled by 
perfect charity, but that fear which the Psalmist calls the " begin- 
ning or foundation of true wisdom," Psal. cxi. 10. as being the 
source of watchfulness, and the strongest guard against sin. In ef- 
fect, I take it to be the best security of every Christian to keep his 
soul so balanced between hope and fear, that neither too great a 
confidence may swell him with presumption, nor an excessive fear 
cast him into dejection or despair. 

As to the Catechist's answer to his 2d question, if he means no 
more, than that it is the duty of every Christian to use all diligence 
to secure his eternal salvation by a lively faith and the practice of 
good works, I know none he has to oppose him but Libertines and 
Atheists. For this is the very doctrine of St. Peter in the follow- 
ing text, " give diligence to make your calling and election sure ; for 
if ye do these things, ye shall never fall," 2 Pet. i. 10. And the 
other texts the Catechist has quoted, prove no more. I add that 
they, who according to St. Peter's advice, labour with all diligence 
to make their calling and election sure, are not absolutely assured 
by faith that their calling and election is sure, for if they were, they 
would not need to labour to make it sure ; and since we are bound 
to use this diligence during the whole course of our lives, it follows, 
that we never can have an absolute and infallible certainty of our 
salvation as long as we live. And, the safest way on our part to 
secure it is, to submit humbly to the condition of our mortal state ; 
which is not a state of security, but a continual warfare or combat, 
in which the success is always conditional, and mixed on our side 
with some degree of uncertainty. 



ARTICLE XXIV. 

OF CELIBACY, OK THE SINGLE LIFE OF PRIESTS. 

The twenty- fourth pretended error of Papists is, their forbidding 
priests to marry. Then he puts this question, what do Papists 
say to marriage itself? To which he answers. They do not 
forbid all marriage, but speak disgracefully and contemptuously 
of it, p. 19. 

ANSWER. 

It is not true that we speak contemptuously of it ; for we believe 
marriage to be a sacrament ; and it is not our practice to speak 
contemptuously of any sacrament whatsoever : but first we speak 



96 



OF CELIBACY* OR 



with contempt of the marriage of fallen priests, because we believe 
their pretended marriage to be real sacrilege and adultery, and so 
did the ancient fathers speak of it, as I sliall shew hereafter, 2dly, 
Though marriage legally contracted, be honourable in all, we are 
sure that celibacy, or a single life, is the perfecter state, if St. Paul 
has not deceived us. For he writes thus to the Corinthians ; I 
would (says he) that all men were even as myself; but every one 
has his proper gift of God ; one after this manner, and another af- 
ter that ; I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for 
them if they abide even as I ;" 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8. And again, " he 
that is unmarried (says the apostle) careth for the things that he- 
longeth to the Lord, how he may please the Lord ; but he that is 
married careth for the things that are of this world, how he may 

please his wife," 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33. Whence he concludes, 38 . 

" So then he that giveth his daughter in marriage, does well ; but 
he that giveth her not, does better. 

It was this induced the Catholic church in ancient times, parti- 
cularly in the fourth and fifth century, to lay a restraint upon the 
marriage of persons engaged in holy orders. And she was directed 
to it by the very example of the apostles, of whom St. Jerom writes 
thus : J the apostles (says he) either were virgins ; or they who were 
married had no commerce with their wives.* He goes on thus : 1 Bi- 
shops, priests, and deacons are either chosen virgins, or widowers ; 
or at least abstain from their wives, after their ordination as long 
as they live.' Epist. 50, St* Epiphanius writes in the following 
manner : * he that lives as a husband with his wife, though he ne- 
ver was twice married, is not admitted by the church to the order of 
a deacon, priest, bishop, or even sub-deacon. But only he, who 
either breaks off all commerce with his wife, or is deprived of her 
by death.' Her. 59 

What authentic witnesses are these of this ancient discipline of 
the church ? but though they had been silent, the canons them- 
selves, and decrees of councils, held even before the great council 
of Nice, would suffice to proclaim its antiquity. That of Elvira, 
under the great Osius, Ann. 300, forbids church-men the use 
of marriage, under pain of being deposed ; Can. 33. The council 
held at Neocesarea, about the year 315, under Vitalis, bishop of 
Antioch, forbids priests to marry under the same penalty; Can. 1. 
Nay, by a statute of the council of Aneyra, held under the same 
prelate, even deacons were put under the same restraint, unless 
they entered their protests against it before their ordination ; and 
therefore were supposed to be dispensed with by their bishop. 

In the fifth age, it is manifest from the council of Chalcedon, 
Can. 14, that in some provinces, even those who had received the 
lesser orders as readers, were not allowed to marry. And I stand 
positively upon it, that there is no example in antiquity of any one 
bishop or priest, that ever was permitted by the church to marry, 
after he had received the order of priesthood. 



THE STXGLE LIFE OP PEIESTS. 



97 



The .sam? is to be said of all those, whether men or women, who 
had consecrated themselves to God by solemn vows. In so muck 
that as many as return to the world, or pretended to engage them- 
selves in the bonds of wedlock, after the making of such vows, were 
in all antiquity looked upon as apostates from the faith, and worse 
than adulterers. « 1 stick not to affirm, (says St. Austin) that the 
breach of a religious vow is worse than adultery/ L. de bono Vi- 
duitatis, C. 11. And St. Chrysostom speaks the same language in 
his epistle to Theodorius a fallen monk : ' Marriage (says this 
father) is a just and lawful thing, I grant it. Marriage is honourable 
in all and the bed undefiled. But now it is not a thing in your 
power ; for being once joined to your heavenly Spouse, to leave 
him, and fall into the embraces of a wife, is adultery. Give it a 
thousand times if you please, the name of marriage, I say it is 
as much worse than adultery, as God is better and greater than 
woman kind.' Nay, St. Paul himself says of widows consecrated 
to God, that " when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, 
they will marry, having damnation ; because they have cast off their 
first faith,' 1 Tim. v. 11, 12. The reason whereof is plain, be- 
cause the observance of vows freely made to God, are strictly com- 
manded by God himself, in the following words, * when thou shalt 
vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it — 
That which is gone out of thy lips, thou shalt keep and perform," 
Duet xxiii. 21, 23. 

I shall add but one thing more, viz. That the single life of 
bishops and priests is a matter of ecclesiastical government or dis- 
cipline only : whence I infer, 1. That the church had always au- 
thority to make it a law, especially in regard of those that offer 
themselves freely to holy orders. How many private persons are 
there, that will not take servants into their families but upon con- 
dition, that they shall keep unmarried as long as they continue in 
their service ? And shall not the church of Christ be allowed to 
make her conditions with those of her children, who desire to enter 
into her service, by presenting themselves voluntarily to holy or- 
ders? It is very hard she should not. Those, therefore, who are 
not disposed to perform the conditions upon which they are ad- 
mitted, ought not to engage themselves. 

I infer, 2. That as the church had authority to make such a law 
in the primitive times, so had she the same authority in after ages, 
to continue or enforce it. For I see no reason why the church o. 
Christ should lose any part of her legislative power by time or age. 

Whence I infer, 3. That the proceedings of the first reformers 
were most unwarrantable, in assuming a power to license the vio- 
lation of a superior law, which had been recommended by the very 
example of the apostles, as I have proved from St. Jerom ; had beeti 
consecrated by the practice of antiquity, and enjoined by the de- 
crees of innumerable councils ; and, what was still more scandal- 

© 



OF CELIBACY, OR 



©u*, to countenance the breach of the most sacred and solemn vows 
made to God himself. Such was the conscience and religious pietg 
of the first reformers. 

The Catcchisfs Objections Answered. 

Let us now see M'hat the Catechist alledges against this part of 
our discipline, which appears to be so just and honorable in all re- 
spects. He attacks it with his usual heat. For having put this 
question, what do Protestants say in this matter ? he answers it 
thus : they say, that the Popish doclrine forbidding to marry, is 
devilish and wicked doctrine. It seems then St. Paul taught de- 
vilsh and wicked doctrine, when he preached hell and damnation 
against widows that married after they had consecrated themselves 
to God. The council of Chalcedon, though received by the church 
of England, 1 Eliz. 1. if the Catechist argues right, taught like- 
wise most wicked and devilish doctrine ; for it declared, Can. 15- 
that if a deaconess married after she had been some time in the 
service of the church, both she and her husband should be excom- 
municated. And Can. 16. that it is not lawful for monks or vir- 
gins who are devoted to God to marry, and that they who do so 
shall be excommunicated. 

But notwithstanding the fiery zeal of our Catechist, I hope not 
only St. Paul, but even the great council I have spoken of, will 
find credit enough in the world to be acquitted from diabolical doc- 
trine ; and so the church of Rome may make a fence to shelter her- 
self under their authority. But what then does St. Paul mean, 
when he reckons forbidding to marry among the doctrines of devils, 
1 Tim. iv. 3. 

To this Dr. Hammond, Paraphr. p. 734, will answer for me, 
4 that he means forbidding marriage as a thing unlawful in itself, as 
the Gnostics began to do in St. Paul's time/ And as the disciples 
of Saturninus, Marcion, Tatian, Manichseus, and other heretics did 
in the first and second age after the apostles. For*:f he meant what 
the Catechist pretends, he would both condemn himself and it 
would follow, that forbidding to marry within the prohibited de- 
grees of consanguinuity, would also be the doctrine of devils; and 
so the church of England would be guilty of teaching devilish and 
wicked doctrine, as well as the church of Rome. 

This answers the last of the seven texts produced against us by 
the Catechist. Let us then see, whether the other six be any 
more to the purpose. I shall answer them in the same order as 
they are set down in the catechism. 

The first is, i all men cannot receive this saying, save those to 
whom it is given:' Matt. xix. 11. I answer, this text is wrong 
translated ; for it ought to be translated thus, all men do not re- 
ceive this saying. Now there is a large difference between not 
doing a thing, and not being able to do it. 



T'lE SINGLE LIFE OF PRIESTS. 



99 



The second is, " to avoid fornication, let every man have his own 
wife," I Cor. vii. 2. Well, what then ! will the Catechist infer 
from thence, that marriage is the only means to avoid fornication ? 
if he does, St. Paul, who had no wife, yet was no fornicator, wrtl 
rise in judgment against him for abusing the sense of his sacred 
words ? nay he will draw upon himself the just indignation of num- 
berless widows and widowers, maids and batchelors in Great Britain, 
who will tell him, they can live free from fornication without en- 
gaging themselves in the hands of wedlock. If therefore God's 
grace be not wanting to thousands among the laity, who live single 
to their very deaths, we cannot doubt but it flows more plentifully 
on those, who embrace the single state out of a pure zeal to devote 
themselves entirely to his service. Whence it is plain, St. Paul's 
words imply no general precept, but only an advice to those who, 
being under no engagements, are at full liberty to marry if they 
please, and find perhaps by experience, that marriage is the best 
security against their natural weakness.. 

But does not St. Paul say, "it Is better to marry than to burn ?" 
he does so ; hut he does not say that marriage is the only remedy 
against burning ? Let us suppose a married man so unhappy as to 
hate his own wife, and at the same time burn for the wife of his 
neighbour, (I fear the case is not impossible) must he marry her ? 
No surely. What then must he do ? I believe St. Paul would 
advise him to have recourse to the remedies himself made use of 
against the buffets of Satan ; that is, to prayer and mortification — ■ 
It Is therefore plain, that there are other remedies, besides that of 
marriage, provided by Almighty God against the burnings of con- 
cupiscence ; and these are the remedies, which persons engaged in, 
holy orders and religious vows make use of, when they find them- 
selves assaulted by unlawful desires. So that we may reasonably 
hope, matters are not so bad as the Catechist represents them, when 
he tells us, that forbidding to marry leads to much lewdness and vil- 
lainy, as fornication, adultery, incest, &c. Nay if it does, St. Paul 
was highly to blame, when he debarred widows, devoted to God, 
the liberty of it. 

His third text is, " have we not power to lead about a sister, a 
a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and 
Cephas," 1 Cor. ix. 5. Here again the sacred w r ord of God is put 
to the torture, to force it to speak the language of flesh and blood. 
For, 1. how could St, Paul, who had no wife, have the power te 
lead one about ? 2. How is it probable the apostles should lead 
their wives about, since St. Jerome assures us positively, that they 
who were married, lived separated from the use of wedlock ? But 
3dly, the whole context shews that St. Paul speaks not of a wife, 
but of a woman or diaconista to attend him in his travels, and pro- 
vide necessaries for him, probably out of her own substance. 

This, I say, is proved from the context : for the whole drift of thfc 
chapter whence it is taken; (as appears from the title prefixed tot 



100 



©F CELIBACY, OR 



in tke Protestant bible) is to shew that ministers ofths gospel must 
live by the gospel : " am I not (says St, Paul) an apostle ? Are 
notyoumyworkinthe Lord ?' 1. Have we not power toe \t and drink 
4. Then follows the text in question, which truly translated is this : 
* have we not power to lead about a sister, a woman, as well as the 
other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas ?' o. And 
he goes on thus : * who goeth to warfare any time at his own charges ? 
Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit ? or, who feedeth 
a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock ?" 6, &c 

But must not the apostles have stood in need of more than was 
necessary for their own subsistence, if St. Paul spoke of the wives 
of his fellow apostles, who were in no condition to maintain their 
husbands, but rather to be maintained by them ? So that their 
company would have been an additional charge to them instead of 
a help ; especially if they lived together as husbands and wives, and 
an increase of children were continually coming upon them. It is 
therefore plain, the Protestant translators have used violence to the 
aforesaid text, and made St. Paul speak things he never thought of, 
to render him favourable to the first reformers, and encourage others 
to follow their religious example. 

The 4th and fifth texts quoted by the Catechist have the same 
tendency, and are as follows : " a bishop may be blameless the hus- 
band of one wife, 1 Tim. iii, 2. " Having faithful children," Tit. i. 4. 
I doubt not but the Catechist thinks this a clear text against us; and 
so it will be if he can infer from it that a bishop must be a married man 
according to St. Paul's rule. But if that be his meaning, why did he 
not follow his own rule ? for it is very certain St. Paul was a bishop, 
and it is no less certain he never was married. The true meaning 
therefore of his words is, that a man was not fit to be promoted to 
episcopacy, who had been married oftener than once, so that the force 
ef St. Paul's rule- is not the word wife, but in the word one. 

But does it not follow at least, that St. Paul allowed bishops to 
marry once ? I answer, it follows that a man who was or had been 
once married might be made a bishop ; but it does not follow, that 
bishops were allowed to marry after their consecration. And the 
reason of St. Paul's rule in the choice of persons to be promoted to 
holy orders was, because in his time virginity was so rare, both 
among Jews and Gentiles, that if neither married men nor widowers 
had been chosen, the church would have been destitute of necessary 
pastors : yet even then he would not have those taken to the altar 
who had been married twice, and thereby appeared to have stronger 
ties to earth,, than was suitable to so holy an employment. 

His sixth text is, "marriage is honourable in all, and the bedun- 
deftled," Heb. xiii. 4* I answer marriage is honourable in all : but 
sacrilege and adultery are not at all honourable things. The pre- 
tended marriage of Theodore the monk appeared not at all honour- 
able t© St. Chrysostom, who told him it was worse than adultery, 
Not' was the marriage of widows, that began to wax wanton against 



THE SINGLE LIFE OF PHIESTS. 



101 



Christ, honourable in the judgment of St. Paul. And Luther's mar- 
riage with a nun was scandalous to the highest degree, even in the 
judgment of Melancihon ; who was mueh scandalized at it. 

But do I then infer that the Protestant clergy live in continual 
adultery ? No : for I am fully persuaded that their marriage is 
valid, as that their ordination is null. 

However I cannot have the same opinion of the marriage of the 
first reformers : for many of them had been validly ordained in the 
Catholic church, and by their orders were tied to her laws and dis- 
cipline. Some of them had over and above made solemn vows of 
perpetual chastity ; and I presume vows made to God are not cob- 
webs to be broken through at pleasuie. I am not however surpris- 
ed that Protestants, though now free from such engagements, should 
still stand up for the marriage both of religious and priests, by rea- 
son of the signal service it did to their church in its infancy. For 
the reformation was clenched by it, and the means of its lull estab- 
lishment were thousands of sacrileges and broken vows. 

Priests and nuns, whose example was like to have an influence 
on many of both sexes, were too considerable a part of the church 
to be neglected or overlooked in a general reform ;. and liberty was 
not only the most proper bait to be set before them- but the best 
reason in the world to convince them that a reformation was neces- 
sary ; but least time and age, and the troublesome after-qualms of 
conscience should suggest dangerous thoughts of returning to their 
ancient mother church, the expedient to keep them staunch to the 
cause was to hamper them fast in the noose of wedlock. Here 
then the pulpits were employed to preach down the obligations of 
religious vows. Scriptural texts were taught to speak a language 
agreeable to the desires of flesh and blood, nunneries were set open, 
and priests allowed to exchange their breviaries for more diverting 
company. Na}', to their great comfort and edification, Martin Lu- 
ther, with his religious bride Kate Boren* had already set the ex-, 
ample ; and it was too charming not to be followed by many, who, 
would have thought a mere change of religion a very dull and insi- 
pid thing to be damned for^ if there had been nothing to be got by 
it in this world. 

Thus fallen priests and nuns, became the nursing fathers and- 
mothers of the reformed churches, and the new gospel was propa-- 
gated like mankind after the fall of Adam, not by & spiritual but 
carnal generation. Not that all flocked in it to become votaries to 
Venus ; for great numbers abhorred the thing, and chose to be beg-- 
gars abroad, and to fly for sanctuary to foreign monasteries rather 
than defile their souls, and dishonour their sacred character with 
practices unheard of before, though then varnished over with the 
plausible name of marriage. But let that be as it will, it is plain the 
reformation was built upon the ruins of broken vows ; and would 
have gone on but very slowly, if that untoward block of delicacy 
had not been removed out of its way. 



102 



THE CONCLUDING QUESTIONS, ETC. 



Let us now consider the Catechist's concluding questions and 
answers, which cannot but give great edification. 

The Catechisfs concluding questions and answers briefly remarked 

upo?i. 

The Catechist having now finished his confutation of Poper}^ with 
such good success, that any ordinary capacity may be able (as he 
assures us in his title-page) to defend the Protestant religion against 
the most cunning jesuit or Popish priest, concludes his catechism 
with a few supernumerary questions and answers ; the first whereof 
is as follows : 

Q. Are there no more errors of the Papists ? 

A. Yes, many. But these are sufficient to make Protestants ab- 
hor their church and doctrine. 

Here again the Catechist owns frankly, that there need no more 
to make Protestants abhor the church of Rome and her docfrine. 
And what then conld he desire more? Is not this a plain declara- 
tion, that it was not his zeal for the Prosestant cause, which stood 
no farther in need of his pen, but the superabundance of his hatred 
to our persons, that prompted him to add the scurrilous piece in the 
end; as likewise the following questions and answers, which have 
no manner of connection with the subject of his catechism. 

Q. Do not Popish priests, Jesuits, and others, that die for trea- 
sons and murders, die like Christians ? 

A. No. True Christians at their death will give glory to God. 

Q. Do they not give glory to God ? 

A. No. If they did, they would confess their just deserts that 
bring them to that punishment. 

Q. Why do they not confess their treasons, murders, &c. when 
they come to die for them ? 

A. Because their church forbids them to confess to Protestants, 
whom they call heretics. 

Q. How does that appear ? 

A. Upon this principle, namely, that no man owes his enemy 
truth. 

q} Why so ? 

A. Because then he owes what may be a means for his pre- 
servation. 

Q. What use do they make of this principle ? 

A. That Protestants being adversaries to the Church of Rome, 
her sons owe them nothing but ruin and destruction ; and the 
vilest means they can use for that end are meritorious and glorious. 

These are the concluding questions and answers of the author's 
Catechism ; which serve likewise for an introduction to that un- 
paralleled piece of unchristian slander, whereof I have spoken in 
the preface, and where the vile calumny contained in the last ques- 
tion and answer is likewise sufficiently confuted. I shall only add 



THE CONCLUDING QUESTIONS, ETC. 



103 



one unquestionable proof of the falsehood of it. The unfortunate 
king Charles I. was certainly a zealous Protestant ; yet the whole 
.Roman Catholic nobility and gentry ventured their lives and for- 
tunes in his service. And though the signal services they had done 
him were soon after forgot by his Protestant successor, they were 
always so eminent for their loyalty to him, that a facetious gentle- 
man at court took one day the liberty to tell king Charles II. that 
the Papists were the best cattle he had ; for though they had been 
sold thrice, he had them still upon his hands, Nay, soon after the 
king's restoration, it was to the pure zeal of the Catholic lords for 
his Majesty, that the Protestant bishops owed in a great measure, 
their being restored to the house of lords. For there was not a 
Catholic lord but gave his vote for them. And they had no other 
motive to induce them to it, than the prospect of strengthening the 
king's interest in that honourable assembly, by the addition of 
twenty-six sure friends to the crown : as they doubted not but they 
would always be, So notoriously false is it what the Catechist af- 
firms : viz. That Protestants being enemies to t T .ie church of Rome, 
her sons owe them nothing but ruin and destruction. And as this 
is the whole foundation of his malicious answers to the other six 
questions, it is plain they are as false as the principle, on which 
they are grounded. It is false, (I say) that Roman Catholic cri- 
minals receive absolution upon condition that they deny or conceal 
the real crime for which they die. It is likewise false, that it is a 
principle of religion, that no man owes truth to his enemy. On the 
contrary, we are expressly taught, that faith, justice, truth and 
honesty, are duties we owe to all mankind. 

Ay, but our church forbids us to confess to Protestants, whom 
we call heretics. What ! would the Catechist have (he Roman Ca- 
tholics, that are executed, confess their sins to the ordinary of 
Newgate, to have them cried about London streets, as soon as the 
breath is out of their bodies ! I frankly own, they make it a matter 
of conscience, not to die in the communion of Paul Lorain, and 
have so mean an opinion both of his absolution and secrecy, that 
they will never trust to either. 

However, the Catechist will needs have it that Jesuits, priests, 
and others among us, that are executed for treasons, murders, &c, 
die not like Christians ; because (says he) they do not confess their 
just deserts, that bring them to that punishment. Well ! I bless 
God, I never yet heard of any one priest or jesuit, executed for 
felony or murder in Great Britain, as the author's words plainly in- 
sinuate. And so that part of his charge is as trifling, as i'< is ma- 
licious. And as to those among the Catholic laity, who come to 
that misfortune, though they seldom care for making speeches at 
the place of execution, I never heard of any one that denied the 
fact, for which he was justly condemned. Nor is it lawful to do it 
upon any pretence whatsoever : Nay, I am sure there is not a priest 
in England or elsewhere, that would give absolution to a criminal 



104 



THE CONCLUDING QUESTIONS, ETC. 



who should offer to deny with his dying breath, the felony or mur- 
der he had really committed. 

But as to the crime of treason, the Catechist either means those 
Jesuits and priests who have been executed by the sanguinary laws of 
queen Elizabeth, merely for performing their priestly functions (an 
account whereof may be seen in Stow) and this sort of treason they ne- 
ver were ashamed to own ; or he means those jesuits, and laymen, who 
suffered in Oate's plot ; and if these were the persons that died not 
like Christians, because they disowned the fact for which they suf- 
fered, then the primitive martyrs, who in the very first general 
persecution under Nero were put to death for burning the city of 
Rome, (as it was alledged against them) must also be accused of 
not dying like Christians, since they all unanimously disowned the 
fact. And the case is so exactly parallel, that the Catechist must 
be lost to all shame, as well as conscience, if, after the nation has 
been so solemnly disabused in reference to that sham plot, and the 
innocent sufferers in it so fully cleared, he persists to maintain that 
the Papists were any more guilty of conspiring against king Char- 
les II. than the primitive Christians were of burning Rome. But 
if the Catechist speaks of executions of a later date, I shall only 
desire him to remember, that Papists were not the only sufferers 
in those occasions : for they died in very good Protestant compa- 
ny ; and I never heard any one say, but they died as much like 
good Christians, as their Protestant fellow-sufferers. 



( 105 ) 



APPENDIX. 

Wherein it is chiefly pr&ved. itiat Popery is neither a traitorous 
nor bloody religion* 

The Roman Catholic religion, as it differs from Protestancy, 
Was in possession of whole Christendom for many ages before the 
pretended reformation ; and at this very time is professed by the 
most learned and flourishing kingdoms of Europe* It was brought 
into England above pleven hundred years ago, where it flourished 
without any change for the space of nine hundred years together ; 
and in that tract of time has been frequently watered with the blood 
of martyrs, adorned by innumerable persons eminent for holiness 
and learning, confirmed by innumerable decrees of councils, sup- 
ported by the whole legislative power of the nation, and maintained 
by the authority of the very best, the wisest, and most glorious 
kings that England ever produced. 

Now suppose a man should have the boldness to assert; that for 
so many ages together all the British kings and bishops, together 
with their councils, universities, and parliaments, were either mad- 
men or Atheists, would not every man of sense and modesty cry 
out shame upon him ? Yet our Catechist has ventured to do no 
less than this, when in the fury of his zeal against Popery he bestow- 
ed upon it the seven outrageous titles of a superstitious, idolatrous, 
damnable, bloody, traitorous, blind, and blasphemous religion % 
which in effect is charging all the forementioned honourable pro- 
fessors of it with downright folly or Atheism, since it is manifest, that 
if this infamous character be really due to the Roman Catholic 
religion, a man must be either a fool or Atheist to make open 
profession of it ? Let the Catechist answer it if he can. 

But why do I here trouble myself with repeating this scurrilous 
piece of slander, which doubtless must, in the judgment of all sober 
men, discredit the author himself much more than those it strikes 
at ? My answer is, that the occasion of my repeating it here is the 
author's repeating it in the appendix of his catechism, where he 
pretends to prove the whole charge in seven distinct paragraphs, 
answerable to the seven titles he has bestowed upon us : two of 
which I intend to take here chiefly under examination, for the great- 
est part of the rest is already answered in the preceding tract. 

The 6th and 7th paragraphs, under the two heads of Popery be- 
ing a blind and blasphemous religion, are so exorbitantly scurril* 



10g 



ROMAN CATHOLICS 



ous and abusive, that they look more like the ravings of a person 
in a raging fit of madness, than an invective composed by a man in 
his senses. In the latter of the two> St* Gregory the Great is 
represented by him as a blasphemer. I thank him however, for 
allowing (hat great saint and doctor of the church to have been a 
Papist, and I am in no pain about his letter to the emperor Phocas. 
After that he charges several of our approved divines with teaching, 
that Jesus Christ was capable of vice and folly, and accuses our whole 
church of attributing all the prerogatives of the divine nature to 
the Blessed Virgin and the Pope ; both which are detestable calum- 
nies : then he proceeds to compare us with the Jews, Turks, Hea- 
thens, and those of Calicut who adore the devil ; nay he gives their 
principles the preference to those of Papists ; and concludes with 
this noble epiphonema, such is their blasphemy ! I leave Protest- 
ants themselves to make what judgment they think fit of such an 
unchristian writer. 

But in the sixth paragraph, upon the blindness of Popery, there 
is a piece of such an extraordinary size of slander, that I cannot but 
record it here to the everlasting honour of the author. ' Popery 
(says he) is a blind religion, which leaves the Papist, no sense nor 
notice of many sins ; no conscience of the most : no fear of any ; 
no not of the worst, such as themselves call deadly crimes ; nay it 
gives as much security to such wickedness, as the heart that has 
sold itself to it can wish for p. 36, 37> Was there ever anything 
so extravagant ? Truly, there is but one thing can be alledged to 
excuse it, viz. that the author was not compos mentis when he 
wrote it. 

What follows has something in it very childishly ridiculous, viz. 
* that as a certain general first blinded his men, and then led them 
into the enemies' quarters, just so do our priests ; and all the answer 
that can be had from the common sort amongst them is this, name- 
ly, they believe as the priest bids them, and if he deceives them the 
devil take him/ p. 37. I heartily exhort the Catechist to remem- 
ber that the devil is the father of lies, and will certainly challenge 
those as his due, who shew themselves to be his true children by 
following such an infamous practice. 

I come now to the two remaining articles of impeachment 
against Popery, viz. its being a traitorous, bloody religion ; which 
is so foul a character in ihe eyes of all mankind, that I hope it will 
not be taken amiss, if I endeavour to wipe it off. 

SECT. r. 

Popery is not a Traitorous Religion. 

First then I observe, that if Popery were a traitorous religion, 
it wonld have been morally impossible, that so many kings and 
nations should- ever have embraced it ; yet there is scarce a nation 



VINDICATED, 



107 ' 



in the known world but has embraced it gome time or other, nay, 
? v nd continued in the profession of it for many hundred years to- 
gether. At this very time the emperor, the kings of France, Spain, 
Portugal, and Poland, besides numberless other sovereign princes 
of a lower rank, are not only staunch Papists themselves, but ex- 
tremely jealous of the least change of religion in their respective 
dominions. And are all these so careless of their own true in- 
terest, or so little concerned for the safety of their crowns ard 
persons, that if they found by experience that Popery is a traitor- 
ous religion, destructive to loyalty even by its principles, and en- 
couraging subjects to rebel against their princes, they would pro- 
fess themselves the protectors of it ? This surely cannot be pro- 
bable- It is therefore manifest, that Roman Catholic princes, who 
cannot be ignorant of the principles of their own religion, are fully 
satisfied that Popery is not prejudicial to the prerogative of so- 
vereigns ; that canonical obedience to the Pope is not inconsistent 
with the strictest allegiance to kings ; that it neither teaches treason 
nor rebellion against lawful powers ; and that by consequence it is 
not a traitorous religion, as the Catechist is pleased to style it. 

In effect, there is not a Catholic king in Europe, but is as faith- 
fully obeyed by his subjects, as any Protestant king whatsoever. 
Nay, even those little princes in Italy, who border next upon the 
Pope's dominions, would make no difficulty to oppose him witk 
open force, if he should invade their just rights ; and: they would be 
as well served by their subjects in such a cause, as any other. — 
Which is a convincing proof, that their subjection to the Pope in 
spirituals, and their acknowledging his headship or supremacy over 
them in a mere spiritual capacity; is no prejudice to their loyalty, 
&or a handle for a treason or rebellion against their lawful so- 
vereigns. 

But let us turn our thoughts a little homewards, where, in the 
space of a little more than one hundred and fifty years, since the 
beginning of the English reformation, we shall find more bloei 
spilt in rebellions on the score of religion, by the hands of such as 
style themselves Protestants, than in the space of nine hundred 
years before it. I say, on the. score of religion ; for all the blood 
that was spilt in Scotland for the dethroning of queen Mary, and 
that large effusion of it in England during the civil wars, had no 
other pretence to colour it than that of religion : otherwise king 
Charles (whose motto was, pro Religions et Patria) would not be 
a Protestant martyr : and it is well known they were not Papists, 
but dissenting Protestant brethren (as they are usually stiled) that 
brought him to the block. 

I shall only add this observation, that from the full establishment 
of Christianity, that is, Popery in England, until the Norman eon- 
quest, which contains about four hundred years, there were the 
fewest rebellions in it that ever were known. And yet the religion 
called Popery never nourished more in this island than during those 



10S THEIR LOYALTY 

f >ur centuaes, in which it produced the most glorious race of kings 
that ever graced the British throne, it was chiefly to the religious 
generosity of those times, that England was indebted for the best 
part of her richest foundations, and those noble abbeys and other 
religious houses, which, until they fell a prey to the luxury and 
avarice of an arbitrary prince, were not only a sure refuge for all 
indigent travellers, but a constant relief for all the neighbouring 
poor about them. Nay, it is to those very times of zealous Po- 
pery, that Protestants are still indebted not only for many of their 
most stately cathedrals yet standing, but particularly for both their 
famous Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, the one founded by 
Sigibert, the other by Alfred, two kings of the Saxon race.— 
And is it not very strange, that if Popery were a traitorous reli- 
gion, a nation professing it should flourish most, and enjoy the 
greatest tranquillity in those very times, in which it was most 
zealously addicted to it ? This surely will appear morally impos- 
sible to any thinking man ; because treachery is the source of wars 
aid confusion, and these bring misery and desolation into a coun- 
try, where they prevail. 

However the Catechist will say, perhaps, that though Papists 
may be loyal to princes of their own religion, they are bound by 
their principles to seek the destruction of Protestants : but this vile 
calumny is already answered in the preface, where I took notice 
that the Dutch, who are none of the least politic people in Europe, 
inak@ no difficulty to admit Roman Catholics into their troops, and 
employ them against any Catholic prince, when the service of the 
common-wealth requires it. So well are they assured of their loy- 
alty, and that the very principles of their religion oblige them to it. 
Nay, may we not confidently say, that unless the prince of Orange 
himself, whom all the world esteemed a wise and politic prince, had 
been fully eonvinced of this truth, he would never have made such 
an impolitic step, as to bring six thousand Papists over with him to 
fight against a Popish prince ? What pity therefore is it, that our 
Catechist was not of his privy council, to let him know that Po- 
pery is a traitorous religion, and so dissuade him from trusting him- 
self in the hands of so considerable a body of Papists, who would 
certainly betray him ? For it is very certain, that not one either of 
his Dutch or English counsellors, (no not bishop Burnet himself, 
that scourge of Papists, nor the earl of Shrewsbury, who had been 
one himself) who came over with him, knew any thing of this im- 
portant secret. 

SECT. II. 

Of the loyalty of the English Roman Catholics during the Civil 

Wars. 

Well, but are there no domestic instances of Catholic loyalty t o 
P^te»taai princes ? yes, surely. For we need but look back upon 



DimiNG THE CIVIL WARS, 



109 



the transactions in this kingdom, when it was the theatre of a 
bloody civil war, and we shall find such memorable instances of it, 
that the Cafechist must have a forehead doubly plated with brass to 
accuse us of having had a hand in the death of king Charles the 
first, as he does in his pretended proof of Popery being a traitorous, 
religion, p. 33. Nay, he may as well accuse Papists of the muiv 
der of Julius Caesar ; and the one will be believed as much as the 
other, by men of sense and common honesty. 

But Protestant historians have themselves taken sufficient care, 
to transmit to posterity both the names and religion of the authors 
of that bloody tragedy. In effect, we need but have recourse to 
common sense to be convinced, that they who took up arms against 
the king, who seized his magazines and towns, who charged him in 
the field, and pursued him with fire and sword until they made him 
their prisoner, were alone the parricides that took away his life ; 
and nothing can be more ridiculously injurious; than to impute any 
part of the guilt of it to those who were ruined in their fortunes, 
and lost their lives in defence of him. 

I have a catalogue by me of above two hundred Catholics, some 
men of quality, most gentlemen of ancient families, who died on 
the bed of honour for his majesty, and sealed their loyalty with the 
last drop of their blood, viz. sixteen colonels, eighteen lieutenant 
colonels, sixteen majors, seventy-two captains, twenty-one lieute- 
nants and cornets, forty-three volunteers, and seventeen more, 
whereof there were two lords, eleven knights, and four private 
gentlemen, whose posts in the army are not specified in the list, and 
if so many Catholic officers lost their lives, it cannot be doubted 
but the number of those that escaped was much greater, as likewise 
that of common soldiers in proportion. Whereas the challenge has 
been often made to Protestants to produce ten Papists, I may say 
two, who in all that confusion of civil wars ever drew their sword 
against the king ? 

I shall produce the testimony of some Protestant writers, who, 
are above all exception : first, Dr. Stanhope, in his book entitled 
the. surest establishment of the royal throne, p. 30. writes thus ; i it 
is a truth beyond all question, that there were a great many noble, 
brave, and loyal spirits of the Roman persuasion, who did, with the 
greatest integrity, and without any other design than satisfying con- 
science, adventure their lives in the war for the king's service — - 
And that several, if not all of those were men of such souls, that 
the greatest temptation in the world could not have perverted, or 
made them desert the king in his greatest miseries.' How different 
is this from the character the Cateshist has given of us ! 

2dly, A Protestant bishop (for he was the reputed author of the. 
liook) in his state of Christianity in England, p. 24. writes thus of 
us | 4 the English Papist (says he) for his courage and loyalty la 
the last war d«serves to be recorded in the annals of fame and his- 
torj. An&pexhaps this may not be unworthy of notion the v 



110 



fFHE^R LOYALTY TO 



soever the usurper, or any of his instruments of blood or sycophan* 
cy resolved to take away the life or estate of a Papist, it was his 
loyalty, not religion, that exposed him to their rapine and butch-, 
ery.' # 

This agrees exactly with what is written in the history of the 
Pyren&an treaty printed in Holland, 4. viz. that the duke of 
Crequi, at the request of the queen-mother of France, interceding 
for a mitigation of the persecution against Papists, Cromwel made 
answor, < that they were his greatest enemies.' 

3diy, The author of the present state of England, printed Ann, 
1692, writes thus : < there are some few families in several parts of 
England have persisted in the Romish religion, and are usually 
called Papists. Against these there are divers severe laws ; but 
their number being not considerable, nor their loyalty for many 
years last past questionable, these laws have been more rarely pet 
in execution.' 

These Protestant testimonies are authentic proofs of the lojaj 
behaviour of Roman Catholics during the civil wars. 1 shall 00 iy 
add one remark, that in those turbulent times, when loyalty was put 
to the hardest trials, and even some bright stars of the church of 
England fell, though their main body stood firm to the crown ; in 
those times, I say, the loyalty of Roman Catholics was so conspicu- 
ous, and so well known, that Papist and cavalier were become sy- 
nonymous terms. Because there was not a Papist but was esteem- 
ed a cavalier, nor a cavalier but was nicknamed a Papist.' 

SECT, III, 

King Charles II. preserved by Roman Catholics after the defeat 
of his army at Worchester. 

Nor did their loyalty end with the life of king Charles I. but con- 
tinued the same to his. Protestant successor, who after the fatal de- 
feat at Worcester, owed his preservation, next to God, to the invio- 
lable fidelity of the Roman Catholics, whom neither the promises 
of a considerable reward could corrupt, nor the treats of certain 
deaths deter, from their duty. 

My Lord Clarendon, part 3, book 13, p. 321, is pleased to say, 
' it is a great pity that there was never e a journal made of that mi- 
raculous deliverance.' But what hindered his lordship from making 
such a journal, since in the very same page he tells us in the mar- 
gin, that < he had all the particulars of the king s 4 escape from his 
mouth ?' I can guess at no other reason for it, than that his lordship 
was afraid to foul his paper with the names of too many Papists 
concerned in it. Since therefore this noble peer was pleased to 
content himself with barely lamenting the want of such a journal, 
I hope it will not be unacceptable either to the Protestant or Ca- 
tholic reador, if I present the public with a short abstract of one 



jtoa charles it. 



Ill 



printed many years ago, and subscribed by two of those worthy 
patriots, who were themselves principal actors in the glorious un- 
dertaking of the king's deliverance. However the journal I pro- 
mise is only of the six first days after the loss of the battle, when 
there was the strictest search made after his majesty's person, and 
the reward of a thousand pounds was promised to the discoverer, 
and the penalty, as in cases of high treason, denounced against any 
one that should conceal him ; for it was in those six days of the 
king's greatest distress, that he was entirely in the hands, and un- 
der the protection of Roman Catholics, as will appear from the 
following account. 

" Wednesday the 3d of September, Ann. 1651, was the fatal day, 
on which the king's army was defeated at Worcester, and himself 
forced to fly attended on by several lords and gen ilemen, amongst 
whom was my lord Wilmot, and colonel Giffard. The darkness of 
the night favoured their flight ; and colonel Giffard (who was a 
Catholic gentleman of Staffordshire, and well acquainted boih with 
the roads and Catholic families of that country) served as guide, 
and conducted she king to White-ladies, where he arrived on 

" Thursday morning. Here his Majesty changed his clothes, cut 
his hair, coloured his face brown with walnut-leaves, put on a 
patched coat, a course shirt, a pair of clouted shoes, and every 
thing else suited to the dress of a poor country peasant. Being thus dis- 
guised, he dismissed all his retinue, and committed his person to 
the fidelity of the Pendrels. These were three brothers ; William, 
who was tenant in a neighbouring house of the Fitzherbert's, called 
Boscobel ; the other two, called Richard and John, were poor la- 
bouring men at or about White-ladies. The king spent the rest of 
this day in a neighbouring wood, accompanied only by Richard 
Pendrel, for his brother John was gone to conduct my lord Wilmot, 
as shall be seen more at large immediately. When it grew dark, his 
his majesty attended only by the same Richard, set forward towards 
Madely, a little town or village in Shropshire, situated near the 
Severn, with an intention to pass that river into Wales. Rut coming 
near the place, one Mr. Wolf, a Catholic of Madely, informed his 
majesty, that all the fords and passages were so strongly guarded, 
that he could not avoid been taken if he proceeded ; and it being 
dangerous either to enter into the town, or return by day-light, the 
king took up his lodging in one of Mr, Wolf's barns* where he 
continued all 

" Friday ; and towards the evening returned back into Stafford- 
shire, with Richard his faithful guide, who brought him to his bro- 
ther William at Boscobel ; which place they reached towards the 
morning of 

" Saturday, And here it was that, to prevent the danger of the 
king's being discovered by those who might come to search the 
house, he Was concealed in Boseobel-wood, in the tree since called 
the r©yal oak, together with Colonel Carlos, a Catholic officer la 



THEIR LOYALTY TO 



the king's army, who after the loss of the battle* had fled thither 
for shelter. Under which concealment his majesty was forced to 
continue the greatest part of Saturday, and 

" Sunday, until about midnight he was conducted by the Pen- 
drels on a miller's horse, to Mosely, the house of one Mr, Whit- 
grave, a Catholic gentleman, of a good estate, where he was very 
well accommodated with lodging and diet, and served with great 
respect by the master and mistress of the house, and Mn Hudles- 
ton the priest of the family. And in this sanctuary he continued all 

" Monday and Tuesday, until about midnight, when his majesty 
took leave of his faithful host, and was brought by my lord Wilmot 
to Bentiey, the house of Colonel Lane, and distant three miles 
from Mosely/' 

This is the journal I promised as a supplement to that part of my 
lord Clarendon's history, where he so much laments the want of it, 
and wherein his lordship's memory was pleased to fail him.1 But as I 
was unwilling to interrupt the seriesof myjournals, orperplex it with 
a mixture of accidents not so immediately relating to his majesty, I 
have yet said nothing of the adventures that befei my lord Wilmot, 
with his faithful guide John Pendrel, and by what lucky accident 
his lordship came to rejoin the king ; of which I shall now give a 
brief account for the clearer understanding of the journal I have 
made, 

" On Thursday morning, the day after the battle, as soon as the 
king had dismissed his retinue from White- ladies, my lord Wilmot, 
who was one of the number, took John Pendrel to guide him into 
the common road between York and London, intending to make 
his escape that way. But finding the ways blocked up on all sides, 
his lordship took refuge in the house of one Mr. Huntbatch of Brind- 
ford, near Mosley, and about four miles from White-ladies : from 
whence he sent his guide John to Wolverhampton, to see how 
matters stood there* But John finding no security in those quar- 
ters, as he was going back to my lord Wilmot, by the singular con- 
duct of Divine Providence, met the abovesaid Mr. Hudleston, whose 
person and character he was very well acquainted with, and there- 
fore made no difficulty to let him into the whole secret : viz. that he 
left the king on Thursday at White-ladies, with his brother Richard, 
and that himself had the same day* but in vain, endeavoured to 
forward the escape of a man of quality* who lay then concealed at 
Brindford, near Mosely, and would certainly fall into the hands of 
the rebels, unless he could prevail with Mr. Whitgrave to receive 
him into his house at Mosely. Whereupon Mr. Hudleston im- 
mediately took John home with him, and there proposed the thing 
to Mr. Whitgrave, who without hesitation, undertook the conceal- 
ment and protection of his lordship ; made him a visit at Brindford, 
and about ten of the clock at night brought him to his own house. 
|£tit because the stables were too near the common street, he sen 
my lord's horses t© Colonel Lane at Bentley, a near neighbour of his 



King citable s it. 



113 



whose honesty he told my lord Wimot he could safely depend 
upon. 

" The next day, being Friday, John Pendrel was sent back by 
his lordship to White-ladies, to know what was become of the king. 
But all the intelligence he could get was, that his majesty was gone 
towards the Severn with his brother Richard, with intention to 
pass into Wales. Upon this information my lord Wilmot resolved 
to follow the king thither, sent back for his horses from Bently, 
and went thither the next night, designiug to take the advantage of 
a pass which (as his lordship had been informed) Mrs. Lane had 
casually procured for herself and a servant, for a journey to Bristol: 
and John Pendrel went back to White-tadieS. 

" The next day was Saturday, and Mr. Whitgrave heard nothing 
of the king all that day. But on Sunday early in the morning, as 
he was entertaining himself with Mr. Hudleston, full of anxiety for 
the king's safety, John Pendrel came running to him in great haste* 
and told him that his majesty, having been disappointed of his de- 
signed passage over the Severn, was come back with his brother 
Richard, and was then at Boscobel in great perplexity what course 
to take for his farther security. Whereupon Mr. Whitgrave and 
Mr. Hudleston, being deeply concerned for the king's imminent 
danger, took John with them and went immediately to Bently ; 
where, being admitted to my lord Wilmot, they acquainted him 
how matters stood ; and it was resolved, upon mature deliberation, 
that my lord should come back about eleven at night to Mosely in 
order to meet the king there : that John should return to Boscobel, 
and from thence conduct his majesty about the same time of the 
night to a certain station near Mr. Whitgrave's house, where Mr. 
Hudleston was to attend and receive him. All which was perforin* 
ed accordingly ; only the king came about two hours later than my 
lord Wilmot. And here it was his majesty was sheltered from 
Sunday to Tuesday night, as I said before. But oil Monday night 
my lord Wilmot parted from Mosely, and went back to Bently, to 
prepare all things for the king's reception there, and take due mea- 
sures with colonel Lane for his secure passage into France. 

" During his majesty's stay at Mosely he was lodged in Mr. 
Hudleston's chamber, by reason of the convenience of a direct pas- 
sage, which that chamber had into a private hole; where the priest 
of the family was often forced to lurk : and his majesty was once 
forced to take shelter in it upon a sudden alarm, that a party of 
the rebels were coming towards the house, their approach was timely 
discovered ; and the king being conveyed into this private place, 
Mr. Whitgrave had the presence of mind to go down and meet the 
soldiers at the gate in order to prevent a farther search. They 
seized violently upon him, and would have hurried him to a prison 
as a person engaged for the king at Worcester ; but he assured 
them he had been a long time sick and infirm at home, and called 
in neighbours to attest the same. W T hereupon they became more 



114 



THEIH LOtALTY TO 



tractable and let him go. And so his majesty was released frohi 
his confinement, and the night after conducted to Bently." 

This is an exact summary of Mr. Hudleston's printed relation f 
the veracity whereof cannot in the least be questioned, since it con- 
tains nothing but facts he either was an eye- witness of, or had from 
the Pendrels themselves ; one of whom never quitted the king from 
Thursday morning until Sunday night, when Mr. Hudleston con- 
ducted him into Mr. Wbitgrave's house his printed relation is 
subscribed. 

Thomas Whitgrave. 
John Hudleston. 

I need not acquaint the reader how well the king was entertained 
by colonel Lane at Bently ; or how serviceable that loyal Protest- 
ant family was in completing the glorious work of his majesty's de- 
liverance, so happily begun by Roman Catholics* For all the par- 
ticulars of this latter part of it, both &s to persons, time, and place^ 
are so fully and distinctly set down by my lortl Clarendon, that 
nothing can be added to the exactness of this relation. Nay his 
lordship appears on a* sudden like a man broke loose from very dis- 
agreeable company, and every stroke of his eloquent pen discovers 
the inward satisfaction of his mind, In particularizing the adven- 
tures that befel his majesty from the moment he was put into the? 
hands of his good Protestant subjects ; whereas Ms lordship's ac- 
count of the six memorable days I h&ve spoken of, is so very lame 
and defective, so intricate and obscure, nay, even so wide from the 
real truth, that it is plain his lordship was handling a subject, in 
which he could find no manner of relish j and which would have re- 
dounded too much to the credit of his majesty's Catholic subjects* 
had he set it in a clear and true lights I shall make bold to produce 
some few remarkable instances of what I say. 

First, his lordship stifles the names of all the Catholic houses in 
which the king was sheltered ; so that neither White-ladies, nor 
Boscobel, nor even MOsely, is so much as once mentioned in his 
book. 

2dly, Neither cotone! GifTard, who conducted the king to White- 
ladies ; nor even Mr. Wolf, who hid him in his barn ; nor Mr* 
Whitgrave who lodged him in his own house from Sunday until 
Tuesday night ; nor finally, any one of the three honest Pendrels, 
who were so signally instrumental both to his majesty's and my lord 
Wilmot's preservation, is eve* once named by his lordship. And 
let any one judge what sort of a narrative of the king's escape that 
must be, in which not one of the fore- mentioned names, either of 
places or persons, is to be found. 

3dly, His lordship tells us, p. 31 9> that on the morning after the 
battle, his majesty, after having discharged his servants, betook 
himself alone into an adjacent wood whereas nothing is more cer- 
tain, than that Richard Pendrel accompanied the king all that day 
in the wood, and at night guided him every step of the way to 



KING CHARLES II, 



115 



Ma lely on the Severn, and the next night back again to Boscobel ; 
though his lordship, p. 322> is pleased to allot this piece of service 
to captain Careless, alias, colonel Carlos ; to avoid, as I suppose, 
the sullying his noble history with the ignoble name of Richard 
Pendrel. 

4thly, his lordship, by I know not what strange mistake or forget- 
fulness, declares positively, p. 324, that the king never was carried 
to any gentleman's house ; and he leaves his readers to guess, whe- 
ther the Papists used this caution for the king's safety, or their 
own. But I dare comiri ^try say his lordship has injured the cre- 
dit of his own history much more, than the reputation of those loyal 
patriots, by so palpable a representation of the matter. What ! 
was Mr. Whitgrave no gentlemen ? Was not Mosely a gentleman's 
house ? And was not his majesty sheltered there from Sunday to 
Tuesday night ? Was it not there that the couragious Mr. Whit- 
grave exposed himself to the fury of the soldiers, whilst his majesty 
was secured in the lurking hole, formerly the sanctuary only of 
priests ? And how then could his lordship be capable of such an 
oversight as to affirm, that the king never was carried to any gen- 
tleman's house ? Nay had it not been for the worthy gentleman 
of this house, where both the lord wilmot and his majesty were har- 
boured, it is probable they had never been brought acquainted with 
colonel Lane, who was afterwards so great an instrument of the es- 
cape both of the one and the other, 

I omit several other particulars* wherein the narrative his lord- 
ship has dressed up differs as much from Mr. Hudiestons plain rela- 
tion, as a romance differs from true history. And all this his lord- 
ship seemed to be driven to for no other reason, than to avoid the 
ungrateful task of mentioning either Mosely or Mr. Whitgrave, or 
any of the Pendrels, whose names deserve to be transmitted to pos- 
terity in letters of gold* And her** I heartily wish our adversaries 
would reflect seriously with themselves, how much it is to be sus- 
pected, that Roman Catholics have seldom or never entire justice 
4one them by common Protestant writers, since so great a man as 
my lord Clarendon suffered himself to be carried away by the vio- 
lence of prejudice, to a partiality never to be excused. However, 
if these papers should ever happen to fall into the hands of any 
Protestant, I hope at least he will be fully convinced, that Roman 
^Catholics deserve not the foul character which the Catechist has 
given of them ; and that they, who gave such signal proofs of their 
inviolable fidelity to two Protestant princes successively, even in 
the time of their greatest distress, were not taught by the princi- 
ples of their religion, to seek the destruction of Protestants by any 
means possible, or to practise treason and rebellion against their 

lawful sovereigns, as this vile writer has had the malice to affirm - 

But let us now consider the facts he has picked up, to give some 
colour to this unchristian calumny. 



POPERY KQ 



SECT. IV, 

The facts produced by the Cateehist to prove Popery a traitorous 
reUyion are wholly impertinent. 

The facts he has produced are five in number j two foreign, and 
three domestic. The two foreign ones are the murder of Henry 
IV. of France by Ravaillac, and the poisoning of an emperor with 
a consecrated host ; upon which the Cateehist makes this smart and 
witty remark (for he can be basely witty when he pleases) that 4 be 
never yet met with a religion before that could poison their God to 
kill their emperor,' But it is absolutely false that the emperor (Hen- 
ry VII. whom the Cateehist means) was poisoned with a consecra- 
ted host, as Natalis Alexander has fully proved, T. 7. Hist. Eccles. 
p. 272. & seq. and if it were true, could not justify the Catechist's 
charge : for when any particular practice is ascribed to such or 
such a religion, the meaning of it is not, that there are some per- 
sons of that religion that do so or so ; but the true meaning is, that 
they are taught to do it by the principles of their religion. Now 
if the Cateehist can prove, that either Ravaillac, when he stabbed 
the king, or the sacriligious priest, whom he supposes tohave poi-*- 
soned the emperor with a consecrated host, acted according to the 
rules and principles of their religion, then he will have reason to 
cry out-r-he never met with such a religion before ? But if he can- 
not prove any thing like this, as he knows very well he cannot, 
nothing can be more impertinent than to produce those facts far 
proofs, that Popery is a traitorous religion. For I only desire him 
to answer me this short question, whether every religion be trai- 
torous, that has had traitors of its communion ? if so, woe be to a 
certain church I know. 

But let us put a familiar instance. Great numbers of Protestants, 
both men and women, are yearly condemned in London for 
thieving, house-breaking, murder, &c. Suppose now some wise- 
acre upon a day of execution, should ask what religion those men and 
women were of that were going to suffer ; and> being told they were 
all true Protestants, should with hands and eyes lifted up to Hea- 
ven cry out, he never met with a religion before that taught thiev- 
ing, murder, &c. would he not deserve to be rewarded with a fool's 
cap ? I leave the Cateehist to make the application of the parable, 
as his own judgment shall direct him, However, the moral of it is 
instruction, and will inform him, that there may be and will be 
wicked men in all religions whatsoever ; and that the crimes they 
fall into are not to be ascribed to their religion, unless its very 
principles encourage their wickedness. 

Thus much for the Catechist's two foreign instances to prove 
Popery a traitorous religion. His three domestic ones are set 
down thus : their attemps 011 queen Elizabeth by Pistol and dag- 



TRAITOROUS RELIGION, 



ger i on king James by the powder treason; on king Charles the 
first, &c. Here he accuses us of having had a hand in the murder 
of king Charles, as I mentioned before. But I hope I have said 
enough concerning that matter to make him blush, if be be capa- 
ble of it. 

As to the first fact he speaks .of!; viz. the attempts of Papists oa 
queen Elizabeth. I presume he chiefly means Babington's con* 
spiracy, of which Camben himself gives such a confused relation, 
dres>ed up with circumstances, so very improbable in themselves, 
and interwoven with so much court juggle, that Sanderson, a Pro^ 
testant historian, in the life of Mary queen of Scots, has the fol- 
lowing remarkable words relating to that business ; which ' desigu 
(says he) is so. pieced and patched together by thos§ that write of 
it, as if each man's fancy in reference to the public must needs take 
effect of rebellious interpretation, jp. 113, 1 14* And in the very 
next page he tells us, that the queen of Scots being then commit- 
ted to the close custody of Sir Amias Pawlet, his baker (Cambden 
calls him his brewer) was bribed by secretary Walsingham to 
counterfeit a fidelity to. her, and offer his service by means of a 
private hole in the wall* to convey letters to and fro between her 
and the conspirators ; 'which letters (says Sanderson) were sure 
to be opened and read by Walsingham, who- got the keys of the 
cyphers, and hi d answers counterfeited to involve wl o n he pleas- 
ed to suspect in the plot.' And who does not see that any plot 
may be hatched, ripened, and modelled, into what shape you please, 
by such vile artifices ? 

I shall add this one reflection more, viz. that if it were literally 
true, as the Catechist says, that the Papists formed several at- 
tempts upon queen Elizabeth by pistol and dagger, it is morally 
impossible, that in a reign of forty -tthree years, not one of them 
should take effect, at least so far as to be only prevented in the 
very execution, .for since any man is master of another man's life, 
if he does not value his own, there's nothing can hinder a man? 
seriously bent upon 6uch a villainy, and fully resolved to hazard' 
his own life, from finding an opportunity to attempt it, at least 
some time or other, as is manifest from innumerable examples both 
at home and abroad, And since no one design of this nature was 
ever brought to the ripeness even of an ineffectual attempt, in so 
long a reign as that of queen Elizabeth, I may modestly say, tlie 
many pretended designs upon her life, with pistol and dagger, 
savour more of romance than reality. And indeed the plain truth 
of the matter is, tha,t the principal design of Babington's con- 
spiracy was to set the queen of Scots at liberty, and rescue her out 
of the jaws of death, But there was a necessity in those days of 
keeping the people s ears continually warm with dismal cries of 
Popish plots, both to prepare them for the barbarous murder of a 
Popish queen, though an absolute and independent sovereign, and 
to palliate the severe treatment of Roman Catholics in those times. 



118 



POPERY NO 



But take it now for granted, that Babington was guilty- of the 
execrable design laid to his charge, what does the Catechist infer 
from it ? He infers, that therefore Popery is a traitorous religion. 

But since he does not reflect how far this consequence will go, 
I shall lend him some assistance to do it, by shewing him, that 
Papists are not the only persons in the world capable of suc'i a 
wicked design. For though it be both base and unmannerly t > rip 
up old stories by way of reproach, it is wholly blameless by way of 
self-defence. Let us see whether Protestants be so guiltless, that 
they may lawfully throw the first stone. 

Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, was doubtless a zealous Pro- 
testant; yet Cambden tells us in the life of queen Elizabeth, p. 
345, 346, that in a council held about the queen of Scots, he gave 
his advice, that she should be taken away by poison, and sent a 
divine privately to Walsingham to satisfy him that it was lawful. 
Now I think Protestant poison is full as bad as a Popish pistol or 
dagger. But she was reserved for the block, like her royal grand- 
son Charles the first. 

Not many years after John Rutliven, earl of Gowry, invited her 
son king James YI„ afterwards king of England, to his house, 
where he had armed men ready to assassinate him: and had not 
Andrew Henderson, one of the assassins, relented, and opened a 
window to cry out for help, whilst the king was struggling with 
Alexander the earl's brother, he had been dispatched in, a moment, 
Alexander was killed upon the place by John Ramsey, and the 
earl himself by Doctor- Herres, two of those who came up to the 
king's rescue. The history of this assassination -plot, and his majesty's 
truly fortunate deliverance, is recorded by Cambden in the life of 
queen Elizabeth, p. 59fr, but more at large by Sanderson, p. 227, 
228, 229. Yet all the conspirators and actors in it were Protests 
ants. A holy-day was kept yearly in remembrance of it, as long as 
king James remained in Scotland ; but after his accession to the 
crown of England, it was buried in oblivion. 

In the reign of king Charles II., came on the Eye-house plot, to 
assassinate both the king and his royal brother, on their, return 
from Newmarket ; but it was prevented by an accidental fire, 
which obliged the king andt the duke to leave Newmarket sooner 
than was expected, and by consequence before things were in a 
readiness for the execution of that horrid conspiracy, as it is justly 
called by the late bishop of Rochester, who has written the his- 
tory, of it ; and the reader may be. sure no, Papists were concerned 
in it, since no day of humiliation is kept to eternize, the memory 
of it. 

But why do I revive the. memory of these odious facts ? Truly, 
nothing could have induced me to do it, but the necessity I am 
under of exposing the malice and weakness of one, who, from the 
treasonable practices of some particular Roman Catholics will 
needs infer, that therefore Popery is a, traitorous religion. For I 



\ 



TRAITOROUS RELIGION. 110 

should be glad to know how he would relish this consequence, if I 
should infer it against the Protestant religion, from the facts I 
have now mentioned, and more I have omitted ? or what answer 
he would give to it ? And whether the same answer will not acquit 
Popery as well as Protestancy ? I am therefore of opinion, it will 
be the Catechises best course to come to a fair composition, and 
own candidly with me, that there may be ill men in all religions 
whatsoever : and that their personal misdemeanours cannot be le- 
gally charged upon the whole body or society, whereof they are un- 
worthy members ; and this answer is enough to satisfy any ra- 
tional man. Nay, either this answer must likewise suffice to keep 
oft' I he scandal of the Gunpowder-plot, from touching Roman Ca- 
tholics in general, or I do not see how Pratestants can vindicate 
their own whole body from the infamy, either of the villainies I 
have already mentioned, or of any other crime committed by par-* 
ticula? persons of their own communions 

SECT. %i 

Of the Gunpowder Plot 

However, I shall touch briefly upon a few particulars relating to 5 
this plot, for tfaj happy discovery whereof an anniversary holy-day 
has now been kept above one hundred and eighty years. It is out 
of pure gratitude to God, the nation is so particularly devout on 
this occasion ? If so, it is highly commendable. For we ought to 
thank God for all things ; and therefore I cannot deny, but there 
is all the reason in the world to give him solemn thanks, that the 
king and parliament never were in any danger of being hurt by the' 
powder-plof. 

What ! dare I have the confidence to deny that plot ? Or say 
that the king and parliament were' m ho danger of being hurt by 
it ? My answer is, that I am far from denying the gunpowder-plot ; 
nay, I believe as firmly that Catesby, with twelve more Popish 
associates, had a design to blow up king James, as I believe (what 
Sanderson and other Protestant historians have left upon record,) 1 
that the father of that same king, was effectually blown up by the 
earls of Murray, Morton, Bothwell, and others of the reformed 
church of Scotland, concerned in that conspiracy. However, 
though I firmly believe the design of the gunpowder-plot, I humbly 
conceive I may say,- the king and parliament were in no danger of 
being hurt by it ; and my reason is, because they had no less a; 
man than the prime minister of state for their tutelar angel, a 
person deeply read in politics, who had inherited the double spirit 
of his predecessor Walsingham, knew all his tricks of legerdemain 
(of which I have already spoken) and could as seasonably discover 
plots as contrive them. This made Osburn, a Protestant writer, 
cenfess plainly, p. 34. < that it was a neat device of the secretary/ 



120 



of tits 



And king James himself, after the first heat of the business wag 
over, and that his ma jesty had dived thoroughly into the bottom of 
it, was wont to call the 5th of November Cecil's holy-day, as the 
lord Cobhara aud others have professed to have heard from his 
own mouth. 

Thus much at least is certain, viz. that the letter written to my 
lord Monteagle, by which the plot was discovered, had not a fool, 
but some vert cunning sophister, for its author ; for it was so 
craftily worded, that though it was mysterious enough on the one 
hand to prevent a full evidence, that it was written on purpose to 
discover the plot, yet it was clear enough on the other, to be un- 
derstood with the help of a little consideration, as the event soon 
shewed* Indeed when it was brought to secretary Cecil, he, poor 
gentleman, had not penetration enough to understand the meaning 
of is and said it was certainly written by a madman. But there I 
fear he wronged himself; f»r the secretary was ilo madman. Ori 
the contrary, he had too much wit to explain it himself; and was 
too refined a politician to let slip so favourable an occasion, of 
making his court to the king, who was to have the compliment 
made him, of being the only Solomon, Wise enough to unfold this 
dark mystery ; which, whilst his majesty was doing with a great 
deal of ease, the secretary was all the w r hile at his elbow, ad- 
miring and applauding his wonderful sagacity. 

But there is a ver}^ remarkable circumstance in the timing of this 
letter, viz. that it was sent to my lord Monteagle, ten whole days 
before the parliament was to sit. Now what necessity was there 
for this great haste, if the letter was designed for nothing else but 
to warn his lordship to forbear coming to the parliament the first 
d\yof its meeting? For it would have come time enough upon 
such an errand, had it been delivered to him either the night before, 
or on the very morning of the session. This doubtless would have 
been much more safe, and answered all intents and purposes, if 
the saving of my lord Monteagle's life had been the only thing de- 
signed. It is therefore manifest, that the author of the letter, 
whoever he was, had other things in view, which succeeded ac- 
cordingly, as he could not but foresee without the help of art-magic* 
For my lord Monteagle who knew nothing of the plot, finding a 
treasonable letter brought to him by and from an unknown hand, 
suspected immediately (as it was but rational to do) that it was a 
design upon him to draw him into a snare ; he therefore carried it 
forthwith to the secretary's office, (as any prudent man would do 
for his own security on such an occasion) and then followed the 
pleasant court -farce, I have already spoken of. So that, in all 
probability, the same man was the chief underhand contriver and 
discoverer of the plot ; and the greatest part of the bubbles con- 
cerned in it were trepanned into it by one, who took sure care that 
none but themselves should be hurt by it. All which is plainly 
hinted at by Sanderson, who writes thus, p. 334. 4 The jesuit's 



GUNPOWUEit PLOT. 



121 



had a note of Cecil's name in their register, not as a day labourer 
that carried a few stones or sticks, but as the master workman, 
whose foreign and domestic engineers wrought in the mine of dis- 
covery/ And Mr. More in his history of the English Province, p. 
3i0. says, 'there was no light suspicion of a peer's knowing the 
conspiracy long before its discovery, who cunningly pretended igno- 
rance, that more might be involved.' 

But let that be as it will, there is no doubt but that they who 
suffer themselves to be drawn into a plot like fools deserve to be 
hanged for it like knaves. And so the principal thing I intend 
briefly to shew is, that the gunpowder plot with which we are con- 
tinually reproached, to incense the people against us, cannot with 
any justice be properly called a Popish plot. My reason is, be- 
cause that expression implies at least a general plot of the Catho- 
lics in England. As when we speak of a Popish principle, the ob- 
vious meaning of it is, that it is a principle generally maintained by 
Papists* Now a plot is looked upon to be general, when a great 
many of the heads of a party and a considerable number of all 
ranks comparatively to the whole body, are concerned in it, which 
never could be said of the gunpowder plot ; for we may modestly 
compute, that a fifth part of England were Roman Catholics in the 
beginning of king Jame's reign, and the Catholic nobility were like- 
wise very numerous \ in so much that the first marquis, the first 
earl, the first viscount, and the first baron, viz. Winchester, Arun- 
del, Montague, and Abergaveny, were all members of the church 
of Rome, and the king's son was then the only duke in England. — 
Yet there was not one single Catholic nobleman engaged in it ; 
and the whole number of those that were, amounted but to thirteen, 
persons, whom also king James, in his proclamation of Nov. 7, stiles 
men for the most part of desperate estates. Their names are set 
down by Sanderson in two colums, p. 328 i viz. eight in the first 
who worked in the mine, where the barrels of powder were to be 
placed ; and five in the second, who were afterwards engaged to 
them, as Sanderson tells us* 

It is true, three Jesuits besides were accused of having been pri- 
vy to it, viz. Garnet, Tesmond, and Gerard ; but the two former 
declared it was under the inviolable seal of confession they came to 
the knowledge of it, and did their utmost to dissuade their penitents 
from it, and even made them promise they would. The other, hav- 
ing made his escape beyond seas, put, forth a public writing, in 
•which he called God to witness he knew nothing of the plot, no 
not so much as in confession. 

Here then let us consider, whether this may justly deserve the 
appellation of a Popish plot ? That is, whether it be just to charge 
Catholics in general with the infamy of it, and declaim bitterly 
against them and their religion on that score ? The case fairly 
stated was thus : thirteen profligate Papists (that is, scarce one of a 
hundred thousand) were drawn into a plot ; some of them being apv 

R 



,122 



OF THE 



prehended, not only ©onfessed the fact, but discovered all their ac- 
complices ; and to shew how far they were from concealing any one 
person the least concerned in it, they even accused their confessors. 
Besides all this, there was the most diligent search possible made 
over the whole kingdom (as all historians witness) for information 
against any suspected persons, yet not one Catholic nobleman was 
found to have been either aiding or even privy to it, nor any more 
accomplices in it among the Catholic commonality, than the above 
mentioned thirteen. And let any one now judge, whether there be 
any more justice in calling this a Popish plot, than there would be 
in calling robbery a Protestant trade or practice, in case a knot of 
thirteen Protestant robbers should be taken in the fact, and brought 
to justice ? 

Nay, king James himself was so far from suspecting the general- 
ity of his Catholic subjects to be concerned in it, that he expressed 
the contrary both in parliament and in a public proclamation. — 
And no Protestant prince on the English throne ever was so favour- 
able to them as king James I. was in the latter half of his reign ; 
and so much, that (as Wilson, a Protestant historian, tells us) Hen- 
ry earl of Northampton, an eminent Papist, was received into his 
council ; and sir Giles Calvert, an hispaniolized Papist, (as the 
same Wilson calls him) was made secretary of state ; and the fa- 
vour he shewed them on all occasions became so remarkable, that 
nothing was more frequent in parliament, than complaints of his 
princely kindness and indulgence towards them, as all writers of 
those times record. Which I think is a convincing proof, that he 
never regarded them as enemies, nor their religion as traitorous in 
its principles to Protestant princes. 

But to conclude, how black soever the gunpowder treason was in 
itself, the crime of a few against king James I. has been abundantly 
atoned for by the exemplary fidelity of the whole body of Roman 
Catholics, both to his son and grandson ; and nothing can be more 
unjust than to reproach their posterity, to the fifth and sixth gene- 
ration, with a fact, of which neither their religion nor their body 
was guilty ; whilst all the proofs of their fidelity in the two follow- 
ing reigns, much more general and of a fresher date, are buried 
in oblivion. 

SECT. VI. 

Of the Deposing Power. 

But the Catechist's chief argument to prove Popery a traitorous 
religion, is grounded on the deposing doctrine ; and, what surprises 
me most, there is scarce a Protestant writer but takes occasion to 
enlarge upon this argument with the same seriousness, as if there 
were any real weight in it. I shall, however, be very brief in my 
answer to it, having been too long already. First, then, I say, it 



DEPOSING POWER. 



123 



runs wholly upon a false supposition. For no Catholic in the 
world is bound to believe, that the Pope has a power, directly or 
indirectly, to depose princes ; and for one that believes it, there are 
a thousand that believe nothing of it. Nay if any one should pre- 
sume to maintain it in any Catholic country on this side of the 
Alps, he would pass his time but very uncomfortably. Yet our ad- 
versaries will needs have it to be an article of our faith. 

But suppose it were, as it is far from being one, I answer 2dly, 
that the argument built upon it is altogether frivolous in relation 
to England, where there is a Protestant prince on the throne and 
where there are now a thousand Protestants to one Papist. For I 
should be glad to know, how the belief of the Pope's deposing pow- 
er can affect the English nation as it now stands t Will his Holi- 
ness command a handful of Papists to dethrone a king defended by 
millions ? Or will a Protestant people depose a Protestant king 
to gratify the Pope ? I am not yet inclined to think they will. — 
And where then is the danger of this doctrine in relation to Eng- 
land ? I confess, if the Papal bulls could cross the seas, attended 
with an army of three hundred thousand effective men, there might 
be reason to fear the Pope's deposing power,. But as things are, a 
prince on the British throne is out of the reach of any deposing 
power but that of his own Protestant people, as experience has 
taught us oftener than once*. In a word, the people have many 
times deposed their king without the Pope, and such as are inclin- 
ed to depose their king are inveterate enemies to the Pope. And 
in a nation, where the bulk of the people are Protestants, who both 
hate and despise him, nothing could be more ridiculous than the 
noise made about a speculative point of doctrine, and that even not 
believed by one in ten thousand, as if it were most highly danger- 
ous to the* state ; whereas, whether it be true or false* it is of no 
more consequence in a Protestant country, than the most trivial 
question in logic. And as Europe now stands, it is ridiculous to 
hold any dispute about it, but merely to. shew the falsity of the 
imputation. 

But is it not somewhat pleasant to hear Protestants upbraid us 
continually with the mere speculation of a few Catholic divines 
concerning the deposing power of the Pope, whilst the practice of 
deposing princes has run violently on the Protestant side ever 
since the reformation ? Nay, it is plain matter of fact, that within 
these last two hundred years, Protestants have practised the de- 
posing power more than all the Popes together have done, from 
the beginning of Christianity down to this very time. 

To make this evident, let us not but take a cursory view of the 
general history of the reformation, and we shall find, that reform- 
ing and deposing came hand in hand together into the world, For 
Luther no sooner began to preach his new gospel, but the people 
rose up in arms in several parts of the empire, being chiefly headed 



124 OF THE DEPOSING POWEE, 

by one Muntzer, who had formerly been Luther's scholar, and said, 
* he had received thQ sword of Gideon, in order to compel the 
whole world to acknowledge the new kingdom of Jesus Christ, and 
depose idolatrous magistrates/ In effect, they openly pretended 
nothing less than to depose not only the three ecclesiastical elec- 
tors, and other ecclesiastical sovereign princes, but all sovereigns 
whatsoever where their arms should prevail. 

This furious storm (wherein above an hundred thousand perish* 
ed) being the signal to rebellion to all other parts of the empire, 
where Protestancy had good footing, was immediately followed by 
the famous league of Smalkald ; the confederates whereof (all 
staunch Protestants) would certainly have deposed the emperor 
Charles, had he not proved too hardy for them. For in their pub" 
lie declaration they styled him no other than Charles of Gaunt, 
usurping the name of emperor, whereby they renounced all obe- 
dience to him , and deposed him as far as in them lay. The depo- 
sition of Sigismund in Swedeland was more effectual, and Q. Chris- 
tina had the grace to depose herself, to spare her subjects the 
pains and cost to do it for her, 

Calvin, the second great leader of the reformation, though dif- 
fering from Luther in many doctrinal points, even surpassed him 
in his atimonarchical zeal : and to give the world an early instance 
of it, he had no sooner got footing in Geneva, but the sovereign 
prince of that place was expelled and deposed. Nay, wherever 
his doctrine prevailed, the same was effected or at least attempted. 
King Philip the second was deposed in the Netherlands, queen 
Mary in Scotland, and the Protestants in France pushed fairly to 
depose both Charles the IX, and Henry III. The church of Eng- 
land has likewise on occasions exerted her deposing power. For 
Edward VI. was no sooner dead, but the heads of the Protestant 
party began to shew they were no enemies to deposing ; for they 
proclaimed the Protestant lady Jane Gray in opposition to queen 
Mary, their undoubtedly lawful sovereign. And though her reign 
was very short, the chronicles relate several attemp ts made by her 
OProtestant subjects to depose her ; the chief whereof was that of 
sir Thomas Wyat, who marched over Shootershill, at the head of 
a Protestant army, in order to make himself master of the city 
and tower of London, and so dispose of the crown at pleasure, but 
being unsuccessful was treated as a rebel. 

Then followed the reign of a lady, who never was against the 
doctrine or practice of deposing any soverefgn but herself; for she 
assisted the French Protestants with men and money against Char- 
les IX. She helped the Dutch to throw off king Philip ; and 
when the Scots had dethroned queen Mary, to prevent all possi- 
bility of her ever recovering her right, she kept her under close 
confinement for seventeen years, and then cut off her head. I shall 
throw a veil upon what has happened since to the unfortunate race 



POPERY IS NOT A BLOODY RELIGION. 



125 



of that injured princess, I mean the Stuarts, Bat whoever reflects 
upon it, must be void o£ sense to reproach us with the deposing 
doctrine, 

SECT. VII, 

Popery i$ not a Bloody R^Ug^cm* 

If more blood were commonly spilt in Popish than Protestant 
countries : or if the former were more fertile in rebellions and con- 
spiracies than the latter, there would be some colour for calling 
Popery a bloody religion. Yet even then it would come very short 
of being full proof of it, unless it were made out, that the blood 
supposed to be unjustly spilt by the hands of Papists, were owing; 
to the principles of their religion ; for any other proof is wholly 
foreign to the purpose. 

But the Catechist, having no such proofs to produce, entertains, 
his reader with half a dozen old stories. One of which is a repe-*. 
tition of the gunpowder-plot, whereof enough has been said al- 
ready. Another is Qats's sham, plot, of which I have spoken in 
the preface. It is true indeed much innocent blood was spilt oi\ 
the occasion of that plot. But it was a\l Popish blood spilt by 
Protestant hands. So that I fear the Qatechisjt will pass for a, 
prevaricator in ripping up the memory of a bloody fact, wherein 
Papists were the only sufferers, and Protestants the only actors. 

But the third of the six facts produced by him, to prove Popery 
a bloody religion, is most superlatively impertinent, viz. The.. 
Spanish armada sent to invade, England. For is this not a strange, 
sort of argument? The Spaniards, a#er an open rupture and war, 
declared, with England, sent a powerful fleet to invade it, ergo, 
Popery is a bloody religion, Suppose, a man should; argue thus i : 
the English and Dutch in the last war, sent a great fleet to invade 
Spain, and much blood was spilt, ergo, Protestants are a bloody 
people, would he not render himself the object of pity or laughter ? 

Well, let us then come to his other .three bloody stories. The. 
first is (as he expresses himself) the horrid murders and massacres 
of the poor \Yaldenses, who have been persecuted with fire and 
sword, &c. But these poor "YSfaldenses, of whom the Catechist 
speaks with so much tenderness and compassion, though at first 
they appeared to profess nothing but poverty, yet i^n process of 
time, became great disturbers of the public peace, and pernicious!, 
enemies both to the church and state ; and then it was they drew; 
upon themselves the severities that were used against them both, 
by armed force, and the due course of justice, which our learned. 
Catechist is pleased to ca.ll murders and massacres. But they were, 
such murders as the executioner of justice commits at Tyburn, ands 
such massacres are often made of rebels, when they come armed- 
into the tield. Thus the Albigenses, a spawn of t&e "V^aldenses, 



126 



OF THE FRENCH 



appearing in the field to the number of seventy thousand, were 
massacred (as the Catechist calls it) by the brave Simon of Mont- 
fort, Thus likewise Wat Tyler, the ringleader of the English 
Lollards, and Wycilifians (who were chips of the same block) was 
slain (the Catechist will call it murder) by the courageous lord 
mayor in the reign of Richard the II, And Sir John Oldcastle 
fell by the hand of the common hangman in the reign of Henry the 
Vth. for the honourable cause of rebellion and treason. So that 
the Catechist, by mentioning the poor Waldenses, has only put us 
in mind of divers rebellions raised by the viperous brood of those 
pretended reformers, and the condign punishment they were 
brought to ; which he may call murder or massacre as much as he 
pleases, but the true English of it is, that they received the just 
reward of their crimes. 

SECT. VIIL 

Of the French and Irish Massacres* 

Next to his lamentable account of the Waldenses, is ripped up 
the old story of the massacre of the Hugenots in France, Ann. 
1572, which was truly a massacre ; but it is universally condemned 
by all Catholic authors that ever wrote of it, and any other crime 
committed by any Christian in the world, may as well be charged 
upon the religion he is of, as that massacre upon the principles of 
Popery. However what the Catechist says of it, viz. That above 
thirty or forty thousand innocent persons perished in it, is a gross 
falsehood ; for the greatest -part of the persons upon whom this 
mussacre was committed, were far from being innocent, unless the 
most obstinate, the most bloody, and most villainous rebels that 
ever were in the world, may be counted innocent persons. They 
had already maintained a rebellion of above ten years against their 
lawful sovereign. They had brought an army of foreigners into the 
very heart of the country, and delivered up Havre de Grace to the 
English. They had at least compelled the king to a shameful 
peace, and obliged him to submit to conditions inconsistent both 
with his honour and safety. They were masters of the strongest 
places in France, as Montauban, Itochelle, &c. So that the king's 
authority was become wholly precarious* and his crown was in a 
manner at the mercy of the Hugenots, who, he knew by past ex- 
perience, would lay h@ld of the very first pretence to break the 
treaty, when they should find it to their advantage to do it. Under 
these hard circumstances he resolved upon the destruction of his 
enemies to prevent his own. For things were come to such a 
height, that the question was not barely whether the ancient reli- 
gion of France or Hugenotism was to be uppermost ? But whether 
Charles the IXth was to be king or not 3 Just as at the treaty of 
Uxbridge, it was not barely the question, whether episcopacy or 



AND IRISH MASSACRES 



presbytery was to be the established religion of England ? but 
whether Charles I. was to be a real king, or only a king of clouts ? 

Add to this, that the Hugenots themselves had set the example 
of massacreing in cold blood before they felt the smart of it in their 
own persons ; for the prince of Conde (who had been condemned to 
loose his head for rebellion under Francis II.) was no sooner re- 
leased out of prison by the death of that prince, and liberty of con- 
science granted to tne Hugenots, but (as Davila tells us) they be- 
came so insolent, that they massacred people in Paris, burnt the 
church of Madard, rifled monasteries, and committed many other 
exorbitances. 

But Davila will perhaps not be believed, though he be highly 
esteemed by Protestants themselves for an impartial writer. Let 
us then hear the account given of these innocent Hugenots by Dr. 
Heylin. ' A greater diffidence (says he) was raised against the 
Hugenots, by the unseasonable zeal of the queen of Navarre, who 
not content with settling the Protestant religion in the country of 
Berne, where she was resolute and supreme, suffered the Catholics 
to be infested in the provinces, which she held immediately of the 
crown ; in so much, that at Pamiers (the chief city of the Foix) the 
Hugenots taking offence at a solemn procession held upon Corpus 
Christi day, Ann. 1 566, betook themselves presently to arms, and 
falling upon those whom they found unarmed, not only made a great 
slaughter among the Churchmen, but in the heat of their fury, 
burnt down their houses ; which outrage being suffered to pass un- 
punished, gave great encouragement and example to some furious 
zealots to commit the same in other places ; as, namely, at Montau- 
ban, Calion, Rodez, Perjeaux, Valence, &c.' Thus Dr. Hsylin, 
Hist. Presb. L. 2. p. 70. Now all this was six years before the 
massacre of the Hugenots, And let any man judge whether these 
persons were innocent, and whether they did not draw on them- 
selves the just vengeance of God, though executed upon them in 
an illegal manner, by the rage of a provoked and revengeful king ? 

It appears at least from what has been said, that religion had the 
least share in the motive of this [bloody execution. For the whole 
business was a Cabinet plot, contrived (as Davila tells us, L., 5 ) 
by the king and queen! mother. And neither of these were ever 
famed as zealots in religion, especially the queen ; who always 
acted the part of a complete trimmer between the Catholic and 
Protestant party ; sometimes leaning to the one, sometimes to the 
other, as they best served her ambitious desires of ruling. In a 
word, as it was not religion but revenge and state policy, that de- 
termined Flenry III. to take off the heads of the Guision party 
(for they were most zealous Catholics :) and as the same political 
motive has determined many other princes to destroy their domes- 
tic enemies, when they could not do it by the regular course of 
justice ; so it was that determined Charles IX. to the destruction 
of the Hugenots; whom he could neither bring to justice, nor re- 



OF f HE FRENCH 



duce by force of arms. Not that I pretend to draw any argument 
from thence to justify the thing, but only to shew that men, but 
especially princes, who generally make state interest their gospel, 
will do strange things for self-preservation, without consulting re* 
ligion or conscience in the matter, when they are pushed too far, 
and are in danger of loosing all : which was the very case of Charles 
IXth, when he resolved on the Bartholomew massacre. 

Lastly, the Catechist brings upon the stege the Irish massacre, 
which he sets forth in the following manner. < After that (says 
he) the bloody rebellion of the Papists in Ireland, where they mur* 
dered a hundred thousand Protestants without any provocation 
given, but to kill heretics/ I answer* that there are no less than 
three falsehoods in these lines* It is true indeed that some of the 
Irish, particularly in the lower parts of the province of Ulster, rose 
up in arms, and killed a number of the English Protestants, who 
had possessed themselves of the lands Which the native Irish were 
unjustly despoiled of. But grossly false, 1. That they killed a hun* 
dred thousand. 2. That they did it without provocation* And 3. 
That they killed them because they were heretics. 

As to the number that were killed, my lord Clarendon (who ex* 
ngerates almost every thing against Papists) makes it amount to 
between forty and fifty thousand, Tom. i. L. 4. p. 287 : so that 
one-half of the Catechist's calculation is already to be cut off* But 
my lord Castlemain, in his apology, printed Ann. 1674, not only 
affirms, but proves to a demonstration, that the number of those, 
who perished in this insurrection of the Irish, could not amount 
even to the sixth part of my lord Clarendon's computation. I refer 
the reader to his book, and desire him to believe no more than he 
finds clearly proved.* 

The second falsehood asserted by the Catechist is, that the Irish 
committed this barbarity without provocation. If he had said 
without sufficient provocation, I should have joined issue with him ; 
because no Christian can have a sufficient provocation to commit 
murder : and we are bound to suffer tyranny and oppression pa- 
tiently, rather than depart from the law of God. But it seems the 
Irish had not the virtue and patience of the primitive Christians, 
who, when they were persecuted, rejoiced in their sufferings and 
returned good for evil. This the Irish ought to have done, and 
they had occasion enough given them to do it : for though we may 
modestly compute, that there were at that time in Ireland, thirty 
Irish Catholics to one English Protesiant (which alone shews the 

* Since the first publication of this Work, and its subsequent edi- 
tions. This subject called the Irish Rebellion, has been impartially 
and judiciously discussed in a work entitled, an Historical and 
Critical Review of the Civil Wars of Ireland,* by Dr. John Curry, 
published in two volumes. Dublin y 1786, and a late edition pub- 
lished in one Volume in 1810. 



AND IRISH MASSACRES. "' 129 

impossibility of the reputed number of the slain, because Ireland 
was not then computed to have above two millions of inhabitants ; 
and great numbers of the English Protestants avoided the massa- 
cre, by flying to Lodonderry, Coleraine, Enniskillen, and other 
places, which were in the hands of the English) I say, though the 
Irish Catholics had so great a superiority of numbers over the 
English Protestants, yet these had the whole power in their hands, 
and the law on their side, of which they took the advantage upon 
all occasions, with the utmost rigour and severity. So that the 
old Irish natives in particular (who began the insurrection) were 
treated by the English little better than slaves. And this I call a 
provocation, and am sure the Catechist would think it one, if he 
and his brethren were used as those Irish were. Let Protestants 
but reflect upon the rebellion in 1642, and the revolution in 1688, 
and they will find that a far less provocation cost two British kings 
very dear. However let that be as it will, the constant experience 
of mankind teaches us, that when men find themselves grievously 
galled, they are naturally provoked to take the first opportunity to 
throw off the yoke that galls them. 

But we must distinguish two sorts of actors in the Irish insur* 
rection. The first were the old Irish natives who began it, as I 
have already said. These were a conquered people, and were 
moved to it chiefly by the oppressions they lay under, and therefore 
laid hold of the fair opportunity presented them, as they thought, 
by the intestine broils in England, to make a bold attempt to re- 
cover their ancient liberty. So that to ascribe this popular fury 
of an oppressed people to no other cause than a desire of killing 
heretics (as the Catechist is pleased to do) is as ridiculous a piece 
of nonsense, as it would be to maintain that the Indian slaves, 
when they rise up against, or murder their English masters, do it 
purely for the sake of religion, and to kill heretics. 

The other actors in this insurrection, were those who are called 
the ancient English colonists, that is the posterity of those that settled 
with their families in Ireland, after the conquest of it. But these 
joined not in the rebellion, until they were driven to it by the 
violent proceeding of the English parliament : for which I have 
such good Protestant testimony, as will set the matter in the clear- 
est light. For the news of the insurrection of the old Irish natives 
was no sooner brought to the parliament, but (as it is in Sander- 
son, p. 444, and Baker, p. 504.) ' the English parliament voted, 
that all the * Papists of quality in England should be secured/ 
which the Catholic lords and gentry of Ireland looked upon as a 
sure prognostic of the severe treatment they were to expect, there 
being a much more plausible pretence to snspect them than the 
English ; and then they concluded, that all the terrifying reports 
which had been industriously spread by particular persons for their 
own wicked ends, would most certainly come to pass : and indeed 
it happened just as they expected ; for (as the said Baker has it, p. 

s 



130 



OF THE FRENCH AND IRISH M VSSACRFS. 



540,) the lords Dillon and TaafFe, were s?ized at Ware, being de- 
legated by the lords of the Irish parliame.it 4 with their advice to 
his majesty concerning the readiest means to quench the present 
* flame.' Nay (as it is in the history of Independency, p. 20 1 -) * tMe 
parliament insisted openly to ' have the Papists in Ireland rooted 
out, and their lands sold. And passing an act to that purpose, 
necessitated the Irish Papists to massae.'e the English Protest- 
ants* 

But the following testimony of the king himself in his Elk. Bas. 
C. 12. Par. 8. p. 63. is above all exception. His words are these : 
f next to the sin of those who began the rebellion* theirs must be 
who either hindered the speedy suppression of it by domestic dis- 
tentions, or diverted the aids, or exasperated the rebels to the most 
desperate resolutions and actions, by threatening all extremeties 
not only to the known heads and chief incendiaries, but even to the 
whole community of that nation : resolving to destroy, root and 
branch, men, women, and children, without any regard to the usual 
pleas of mercy, which conquerors, not wholly barbarous, are wont 
to hear from their own breasts in behalf of those, whose oppressive 
fears rather than malice engaged, &c. 

Thus spoke king Charles, who knew all that passed; and it is 
plain from his words that the ancient Catholic colonies in Ireland, 
were driven into the rebellious measures of the Irish natives by the 
greatest provocations that flesh and blood are capable of. Nay, I 
appeal to Protestants themselves, whether their passive obedience 
and non-resistance be so invincible, that being threatened with the 
utter ruin of themselves, their wives and children, they would not 
endeavour to prevent it by the destruction of their enemies, if they 
thought they had it in their power to do it. I cannot tell what 
they may do hereafter, but I am sure. they cannot yet shew us any 
Protestant examples of such heroic virtue. However I am far 
from justifying what the Irish did ; but all I pretend to say is, that 
they were most grievously provoked to it ; and that the Catechist 
is a most notorious misrepresenter of historical facts in sajing, that 
the Irish Papists massacred the English Protestants without pro- 
vocation \ and that it was to kill heretics. For it is manifest they 
were hurried into it merely upon a motive of self-preservation, and 
would undoubtedly have done the very same, had they been Ca- 
tholics that had threatened their utter destruction. It is true, 
what they did cannot be justified by any provocation whatsoever ; 
for they ought to have perished rather than save themselves by a 
breach of God's law; But to say they did it unprovoked, and 
out of a pure hatred to Protestants, is doing them the greatest 
injustice. 



THE CONCLUSION. 



THE CONCLUSION, 

I have now done with the Catechist, who appears indeed to he 
highly satisfied Vylth his own performance- But I confess I am 
apt to think his Protestant brethren will not be so fully satisfied 
with it, but rather suspect he has played booty, to dishonour the 
Protestant cause, under pretence of writing for it. For though 
libelling, and barefaced slander, may go down with the very dregs, 
and scum of the people, yet all sober thinking men cannot but 
be most highly scandalized at it ; because it will be apt to make 
men conclude, that the Protestant cause will admit of no better 
defence. 

Let us suppose, that in a dispute between a Catholic and Pro- 
testant, the Catholic instead of stating fairly the doctrine of his 
Protestant adversary, should not only represent it under the falsest 
colours, but even charge him with doctrines which Protestants ab- 
hor in their hearts, and disclaim upon all occasions : suppose 
again, that instead of defending himself against his Protestant ad- 
versary with solid arguments from reason or authority, he should 
make it his business to rip up numberless old stories of facts com- 
mitted by the very worst of Protestants, and then tell his reader, 
that these men acted according to the principles of their religion ; 
or what is still worse, accuse them oi* facts they never committed : 
suppose, I say, a Catholic writer should be guilty of this foul 
dealing, would not all men of sense conclude it to be impossible, 
that truth should be on the side of a person reduced to the necessi- 
ty of supporting his cause, by such vile means ? For my part, I 
declare sincerely, if I found any Catholic writer arming himself 
with forgery and slander instead of sober reasoning against Pro- 
testants, it would startle me extremely, and be apt to make ma 
stagger in my faith, especially if I observed, that the generality of 
c,ur divines followed that method. 

The reason hereof is plain, because every body, that has hut a 
grain of good sense, knows that misrepresenting, reviling, and 
slandering, are not only the foulest stains upon the credit and re- 
putation of any cause, but even betray a consciousness in the au- 
thor, that the cause he maintains has not a solid foundation of its 
own to stand upon. For if he thought it could stand firm upon its 
own bottom, he would never hazard the reputation of it, by em- 
ploying the most unchristian means to support it. Hence it is, 
that truth being able to maintain itself by fair and solid reasoning, 
not only disdains the ordinary little artifices of fallacy and mis- 
representation, but utterly abhors to receive any assistance from 
the vile hands of falsehood or slander. Whereas lies can only be 
maintained by lies ; and there is no surer mark of a bad causr, 
than when, instead of standing a fair trial of argument and reason, 
it has recourse to such unwarrantable methods for its defence, as 



132 



THE CONCLUSION. 



no man will make if he be persuaded that he has the truth on his 
side. In a word, a good cause stands in no need of dishonourable 
ways to maintain itself, and a bad cannot subsist without them. — 
The principle I have here laid down is so plain, that it cannot be 
contested, either by Protestants or Catholics; and I leave every 
one to make his own reflections upon it, according as Almighty 
God shall inspire him for the good of his soul. 



the 

REFORMED CHURCHES 

PROVED DESTITUTE 

OF A 



How s/ia// Mey preach unless^ tliey be sent ? 
Rom. x. 15. 



( 134 ) 



THE 

INTRODUCTION. 

(Containing some directions for persons, who either have their 
religion, yet to choose, or are already engaged, in a wrong choice. 

Every man come to the perfect use of reason, is bound to be of 
some religion to serve God in, according to the condition or sta 
tion allotted to him by the Divine Providence : and it is a concern 
of the highest importance not to be mistaken in the choice of it, 
for nothing less than a man's eternal welfare depends upon it, and 
all is lost if he. makes a false step in it. Indifference must there- 
fore be laid aside ; for he who is indifferent whether he saves his 
soul, or not, will most certainly perish ; neither must he consult 
interest, or ease, or education ; for if he does, he. will be in the ut- 
most danger of making a wrong choice. Interest and ease will 
press hard upon him to embrace that religion, which favours them 
most, whether it be the true one or n.ot ; and education, if it be air 
lowed to determine a man in the choice of his religion, will fix him 
as immoveable in Judaism, Mahometanism, Socinianism, or Qua- 
kerism, as in the true church of Christ, No man therefore ought 
to consider whether the church, whereof he is a member, be the 
chureh of the country where he is born, whether it be most favour- 
able to his interest, liberty, and ease ; or, finally, whether it be the 
church, in which he is most like to. make his fortune ? But his 
whole examination ought to be of this one single point, viz. whe- 
ther it be. the true church of Christ in which alone salvation can 
be attained. 

But how is it possible for the greatest part of mankind, such as 
merchants, soldiers, tradesmen, servants, or day-labourers, who are 
usually of narrow capacities in relation to things out of their pro-, 
per sphere, destitute, of learning, and embarked in the cares and 
solicitudes of this life ; how is it possible, I say, for these to be 
duly qualifidfor this importan t choice ? The reason of the difficul- 
ty is plain, because there is but one faith according to St. Paul, and 
but one holy, Catholic and apostolic church, according to the Ni- 
cene creed ; whereas there are innumerable other churches, which 
..all pretend to be the, true church of Christ. Lutherans say they are 
this church, CaMnists say the same, Independents, Anabaptists, 
Quakers, and many mpre put likewise in their claim ; and the 
church of Rome condemns all these, and says she is the only true 
church upon earth! And is it then possible for ignorant laity, 
amidst the daily hurry of business and throng of temporal concerns 
to have either leisure or capacity to inform themselves, exactly of 
all the disagreeing systems of so many churches at variance with 
one another, to examine to the bottom the grounds of their several 



TlTfe INT?xODtTCTTO&. 



pretensions, th* truth or falsehood of their particular doctrine 
wherein they are divided, and all the reasons and scriptural texts 
that appear to be for or against them ? Nothing can be plainer 
than that this is morally impossible. And so we must conclude 
the greatest part of mankind is in no condition to find the true 
church, or determine themselves in the choice of their religion by 
this sort of examination, which entirely surpasses their capacity* 

It is however certain, that since CI i*ist has established upoil 
earth a church for the salvation of men of all states and conditions* 
whether poor or rich, servants or masters, learned or unlearned, it 
must be possible for men of all states to distinguish the true church 
of Christ from such other churches as are no part of it £ for other- 
wise they would not have it in their power either to mend their 
choice, if they have already made a bad one, or to make a right 
choice if, by the misfortunes of their education, they should be en-* 
gaged in a wrong way, or even to know that they are in the true 
church, when the Divine Providence has effectually bestowed that 
blessing on them. 

Hence it follows, that there must be some other way besides the 
examination of particular points of doctrine, for ignorant people* 
either to make a rational choice of their religion, or to fix them 
with an entire security in the religion they have received by edu* 
cation, in case it be their happiness to have been brought up in the 
true one. 

But what way is there proportioned to their capacities, to dis- 
cern the only one true church from so many others, when all pre- 
tend to be this one true church ? I answer, there are a great 
number of general arguments, plain and easy to be understood, 
which mark out the true church as clearly as a pillar set up at the 
meeting of several roads, directs travellei s to the way the\ r are to 
take ; and there are likewise some general principles, by which a 
false church may be. known as clearly as rocks and shelves under 
water are known by the marks set up to warn seamen against 
them. 

Let us then suppose a person is deliberating, whether he shall 
embrace the Roman Catholic faith, or continue a member of the 
church wherein he has been educated? I assure him, he will stand 
in no need of learning to make aright choice, but only of some 
natural good sense, and a hearty resolution to save his soul, if he 
will but weigh with attention, and without prejudice, the following 
general considerations I shall lay before him : 

First, there are in the gospels the fullest and plainest promises of 
a perpetual infallibility made by Christ to his church, as will ap- 
pear from the following texts, " Upon this rock I will build my 
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it Matt. 
xvi. 18. " I will ask my Father, and he will send you another 
Comforter to abide with you for ever ;" John xiv. 16. " The Com- 
forter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my 



136 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your 
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you ; John xiv. 26. 
" I have yet many things to say unto you : but you cannot hear 
them now. However, when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will 
lead you into all truth;* John xvi. 13. " Lo, I am with you aU 
ways even unto the end of the world Matt, xxviii. 20. All 
wiiich is confirmed by St. Paul calling the church of Christ " The 
pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim. iii. 1 5» 

Nothing surely can be stronger for the proof of an infallible 
church than these texts. There must therefore be such a church 
upon earth, if Christ has been true to his word Now all the re- 
formed churches in the world unanimously own themselves to be 
fallible ; it follows therefore that the Roman Catholic church alone 
is the infallible church of Christ, as she has always maintained her 
claim to that title ; and surely a Christian, who seriously resolves 
to save his soul, will choose an infallible church for his guide, ra- 
ther than a fallible one. 

2dly, Protestants generally accuse us of want of chanty, in de- 
nying the possibility of salvation to any but those of our own com- 
munion, I presume then their charity is more extensive than 
ours, for otherwise it would be ridiculous to declaim against 
us for the want of it ; and so they can do no less than to allow the 
possibility of salvation to Roman Catholics ; that is to say, they 
are convinced in their hearts, that Roman Catholics may be saved 
in their religion, because otherwise it would be no charity to tell 
them so, any more than it would be a charity to tell a man that he 
can be saved in a damnable state. 

Now, in a dispute about the truth of revealed mysteries, 
which are above our understanding, and which by consequence can- 
not be decided by the force of human reason, it cannot be doubted, 
but the safest and wisest course we can take to secure the salvation 
of our souls, is to depend upon the greatest authority upon earth. 
And therefore, since the authority of both Catholics and Protest- 
ants joined together, is greater than that of Protestants alone, it 
follows plainly that it is both safest for any man to choose the Ro- 
man Catholic church preferably to any of the reformed churches, 
which alone allows salvation to be attainable in their own commu- 
nion, wherea sthe declared enemies of the Roman Catholic church 
allow it to be attainable in the communion of that church : Catho- 
lics therefore cannot be suspected of partiality in their own cause 
relating to this point, becuuse they have their very enemies on their 
own side ; but Protestants may be suspected of partiality, because 
they are the sole judges in their own cause, and have not only the 
whole body of Roman Catholics now extant in the world, but the 
the authority of all the councils, bishops, _and pastors of the Catholic 
church, for fifteen ages before the reformation, against them. Mr. 
Lesly in his case stated, is pleased to call this a childish argument, 
but I have not yet seen a solid answer to it. 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



137 



rfdly, there are numberless examples of persons brought up Pro* 
testants from their infancy, who in their last sickness have em- 
braced the Catholic faith. A no less man than king Charles II* 
was one of these. But I dare boldly challenge Protestants to pro- 
duce one single example of a person brought up from his infancy 
in the Roman Catholic faith, who ever changed his religion upon, 
his death 'bed ? Whence I conclude, that even in the judgment of 
many persons brought up with a prejudice to us, it is safer dying a 
Catholic than a Protestant : and then I am sure it is likewise safer 
to live in the Catholic church, because many, who have had a de* 
sign of dying Catholics, have been justly disappointed, either by a 
sudden death, or the want of opportunity to be reconciled in their 
last sickness. 

4thly, whereas great numbers of Protestants, by becoming Ca- 
tholics, have not only changed their religion but manners, and 
from libertines as they were before, have become sober and regular 
Christians, nay, even embraced the austerities of a religious state. 
I never heard of any Catholic, who, upon his turning Protestant, 
ever became more sober, more chaste, more just, more charitable 
or pious than he was before. Oil the contrary, the lives of those, 
who fall from the Catholic religion, are generally so disedifying, 
and sometimes even publicly scandalous, that they are a dis- 
honour rather than a credit to the church they come over to* 
Nay, in the very beginning of the Reformation, it was notoriously 
remarkable, that libertinism and impiety increased proportionably 
as Luther's and Calvin's new gospel made its progress ; which the 
reader will find proved with the utmost evidence from Protestant 
testimonies in the following Tradt Art. 3* 

But is it any wonder that persons, broke loose from the whole 
restraints of confessing and punishing their sins, should be more 
easily carried away by all the inclinations of corrupt nature, than 
they who believe themselves bound in conscience to confess their 
most secret sins, to perform the penance imposed upon them, to 
restore whatever they possess unjustly, to make reparation of ho- 
nour, if they have wronged their neighbour in his fame* and to 
avoid all the immediate occasions of relapses ? It is morally im- 
possible it should be otherwise ; and it follows from it that Roman 
Catholics, who are under all these and many more restraints, must 
needs be in a safer way to Heaven, than they who have none of 
these restraints laid upon them. 

I hope, however, no one will suspect I pretend to accuse modern 
Protestants of directly encouraging Libertinism or vice by any po- 
sitive principle of their religion ; for I should wrong them if I did. 
But what I say is, that they have deprived themselves of the most 
powerful remedy against vice, by reforming away the sacrament of 
Penance, which we may properly call the strongest fence about the 
law ; and this being pulled down by the reformation, there is no 
need of encouraging the people to break in upon God's command- 

T 



13& 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



merits. It suffices that the restraints of shame and fear, the one of 
confessing, the other of punishing their sins, are le t to themselves ; 
because corrupt nature, thus set at liberty, will after that act its 
own part, and be too hard for the commandments left thus un- 
guarded. 

5thly, A motive, which sufficed to fix so great and learned a man 
as St. Austin in the religion he had chosen, is surely no weak one, 
and may suffice to direct any man, whether learned or unlearned, 
in the choice he has to make. Let us then hear his own words. — 
1 Lastly, (says he) the very name of Catholic holds me ; of which 
this church alone has not, without reason, so kept the possession, 
that though all heretics desire to be called Catholics, yet if a 
stranger asks them where Catholics meet, no heretic dare to point 
out his own house or church.' But what church is it, in which St. 
Austin was held stedfast by the very name of Catholics ? His 
words immediately proceeding are a full answer to this question.— 
£ Thirdly, (says he) a succession of bishops descending from the 
see of St. Peter, to whom Christ after his resurrection committed 
his flock, holds me in the church.' — Contra Epist. Fund. C. 4. — 
It is plain then, it was the church in communion with the see of 
Home, St. Austin had chosen for his guide : it was in this church 
he was held by the very name of Catholic, because she had always 
had, and has had ever since so full and undisputed a possession of 
this honourable title, that no communion separated from her was 
ever able either to gain it to itself, or dispossess her of it. 

But what means the word Catholic ? It is a Greek word, and 
signifies the same as universal : and this is so essential a condition 
of the true church, that no society upon earth can pretend to be a 
part of it, unless it be in the communion of that church, which has 
•universality both of time and place : of time, by being the standing 
church of all ages since the time of the apostles ; and of place, by 
having on its side the agreement of people and nations, according 
to St. Austin's expression. Both which parts of the church's uni- 
versality are clearly marked out in the word of God. 

Her universality of time is marked out by Christ promising his 
apostles, that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," Matt. 
xvi. 18. And " that he will be with them always even unto the 
end of the world Matt, xxviii. 20. And by Isaias in these pro- 
phetic words, " this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord. My 
Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put into thy 
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of 
thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, 
from henceforth and for ever." Isa. lix. 21. 

Her universality of place, marked out first by God's promise to 
Abraham, that " all nations of the earth should be blessed in his 
seed ;" Gen. xxii. 18. 2dly, by the Psalmist, "ask of me, and I 
shall give thee the heathen for thv inheritance, and the uttermost 
parts of the earth for thy possession ;" Psalm, ii. 8. And again : 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



139 



"praise the Lard all ye nations, praise the Lord all ye people 
Psal. cxvi. 3dly, by Isaias describing " the future glory of the 
church of Christ in the multitude of people and nations flocking 
to her," Isa. lx. And lastly, by Christ himself giving commission 
to the apostle* and their successors u to go and teach $11 nations 
Matt, xxviii. 19. 

Here then it behoves the reader to examine impartially, whether 
those two parts of universality are to be found in the church of 
Home, or in any of the reformed churches? because, in whatever 
church they are found, it cannot be doubted but that is the true 
church of Christ. 

As to the church of Rome, that is to say, the church in commu- 
nion with the see of Rome, she has not only had an uninterrupted 
visible being from the time of the apostles to this day, but has al- 
ways been the most illustrious society of Christians upon earth.— 
She has likewise preached the gospel to the most remot and barbar- 
ous nations in the world, who ha^ r e also received the faith of Christ 
from her bishops and pastors ; and not only they, but likewise those 
very nations of Europe, in which the reformed churches are now 
established ; as England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, Den- 
mark, and the Protestant parts of Germany and Switzerland: for 
all these were converted from Heathenism to Christianity by mis- 
sionaries sent by the church of Rsme, as is manifest from their 
unanimous profession of the religion, called Popery, for several 
ages after their conversion till the pretended reformation. Nay, 
she has at this very time bishops and pastors propagating t hegos- 
pel among the infidels, both of the East and West-Indies ; therefore 
universality of place, or as St. Austin calls it, the agreement of 
people and nations, cannot possibly be denied her. 

But can any of the reformed churches lay claim to this -universa- 
lity either of time or place ? Alas ! it is but two hundred and 
seventy-seven years ago, since the very first of them began to 
creep out of the shell, and it was some years after, before the rest 
came into the world. It is plain then that the very eldest of them 
wants raear fifteen hundred years of universality of time; and as to 
universality of place, I should be glad to know, what barbarous or 
heathen nation has ever been converted by missionaries of any of 
the reformed churches, though they have all the opportunity ima- 
ginable to do it, by reason of the great trade several of them have 
both in the East and West-Indies ? Nay, is there any one of those 
churches that ever extended itself beyond what we may properly 
call a corner of the earth, comparatively to the large extent, botli 
in and out of Europe, of the Roman Catholic church ? This, 
therefore, makes it likewise plain, that they have no universality 
of place; and being all separated from the communion of the 
church of Rome, which has universality both of time and plaee, 
they can be no part of the Catholic church, nor have any claim to 
that honourable title: the consequence whereof is ; that they are 



140 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



no part of the true church, in which alone salyation can be obtain- 
ed, according to this saying of Christ, "if he will not hear the 
church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican Matt, 
xviii. 17- that is, let him be regarded as a reprobate, or one in a 
damnable state. 

Othly, The reformed churches, not one excepted, are either guil- 
ty of schism, or no church in the world was ever guilty of it. Nay 
we may confidently say they have the plainest marks of schismatical 
churches it is possible for a church to have. For what is schism, but 
an obstinate and wilful separation from the communion of the true 
church of God ? Now the first reformers boasted openly that they 
had separated themselves fram the whole world, and it is a plain 
fact they did so. If therefore God has always had a true church 
upon earth, as it is evidently an undeniable truth he has, the con- 
sequence is, that they had separated themselves from the true 
church, as well as from other churches, which surely suffices to 
convince any man that his soul cannot be safe in any of the reform* 
ed churches, 

7thly, There can be no true church, bat what has its origin from 
Christ and his apostles : and this is likewise a truth that cannot be 
contested. Now it is a plain historical fact, that the reformation 
began near upon fifteen hundred years after the ascension of Christ, 
that is, Ann. 1517 5 and by consequence that there were none of 
the present reformed churches in the workl before that time: be- 
cause there could be no reformed churches before the reformation, 
which gave them their birth. And how then can any of these 
churches pretend to be a part of the true one, that is, of the church 
established by Christ and his apostles? Did they in corpora © 
themselves with any pre-existing church that was a part of the true 
one ? No ; they separated themselves from the whole world ; they 
therefore began upon a new establishment, and are no more a part 
of any Christian church that was before them, than they are a part 
of the Jewish synagogue, and so they can be no part of the church 
founded by the apostles, which was surely before them. 

If any one pretends that the reformed church, whereof he is a 
member, has always had a being, though it had not been always 
visible to men, 1 really pity his case, and advise him as a friend to 
give up the cause honestly and fairly, rather than have recourse to 
such a wretched shift for its defence, which in reality is a cover for 
the most ridiculous sect upon earth ; for who will pretend to de- 
feat an invisible host ? And so a Muggletonian, o* Quaker, 
will be as safe behind bis entrenchment of an invisible 
church, and with the help of this ingenious invention, trace the 
origin of his church to Christ and his apostles, as easily as any re- 
formed church in Europe. 

Sfchly. There can be no security of salvation in a church, whose 
very rule of faith is an inexhaustible source of divisions, errors, 
and contradictions. Now whereas the Catholic rule of faith is the 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



141 



Word of God, as interpreted to us by the church of Christ, that of 
the reformed churches is scripture interpreted by private judment ; 
so that the guide of Catholics is the greatest authority upon earth ; 
and the guide of Protestants is every man's private judgment ; be- 
cause whoever appeals to scriptures, and throws aside the church's 
interpretation oi' them, appeals effectually to his own private judg- 
ment, and acknowledges no other guide, which I justly call an in- 
exhaustible source of divisions, errors, and contradictions ; and I 
need not insist upon any other proof of it than the numberless 
jarring sects, all spawned from the reformation, which set up this 
pernicious rule, and soon saw the natural fruits of it in as monstrous 
a babel or confusion, as the infinite diversity of private judgments 
must unavoidably produce. The reader will find this at large to- 
wards the end of the 3d article ; and so I leave every man of com- 
mon sense to judge, whether (considering the sublimeness of divine 
mysteries on the one hand, and the narrow compass of human 
reason, together with its prowess to be biassed by interest or pre- 
judice, on the other) whether, I say, persons be not safer as to 
their eternal salvation under the conduct of pastors, who reject a 
rule which is the fruitful source of errors, and adhere to the au- 
thority established by Christ himself for our guide, than they that 
are guided by ministers, who, by a fundamental principle of their 
religion, are bound to own, that scriptures interpreted by private 
judgment, is the only rule of their faith. 

ythly, no man can hope to work his salvation in a church which 
has no lawful ministry; that is, no lawful power to preach the 
word and administer the sacraments : and 

lOthly, the only church, in which a Christian can hope to work 
his salvation is that, which derives its doctrine from Christ and 
his apostles. 

If therefore J prove these two points* viz, that none of the re- 
formed churches have a lawful ministry, and the Roman Catholic 
church is the only church upon earth, that derives its doctrine from 
Christ and his apostles, the undeniable consequence will be, 1. that 
salvation cannot be hopee for in any of the reformed churches, and 
2. that it can only be attained in the Roman Catholic church. 

The proof of these two important points is the whole subject of 
the following small treatise, and I may truly sa}^, it goes all at 
once to the very bottom of the cause in such a manner, that without 
the examination of any one particular point of doctrine, both the 
learned and unlearned, may not only clearly see what churches are 
to be avoided, as so many rocks on which their eternal salvation 
will most certainly suffer shipwreck, but likewise find that church, 
which alone is a safe harbour wherein it may be secured, 

The endeavours I have used to set this Avhole matter in its 
clearest light, will perhaps displease such insincere souls as hate 
the light because it incommodes them, But I hope they will be 
acceptable to all sincere lovers of the truth, whatever persuasion 



142 



NO LAWFUL MINISl>Rr 



tl*ey are of : and it is for these alone the following sheets are de- 
signed, which have oo other end \n view, than to mark out to them 
the wajr oi truth and salvation, that they either may walk, on 
steadily in that way, if they find themselves already in it, or enter 
into it, if choice or education has milled them into a wrong path. 



ARTICLE I. 
N;o lawful Mmistry without a lawful Mission,. 

Every cavil government has within itself a source from which all 
lawfal power and authority is derived ; and no particular member 
of any society can lay claim to any part of this power or authority, 
unless it flows to him from that source. No man, for example, is 
treated as a public minister, unless he shews his credentials from 
the prince or state that sends him ; nor respected and obeyed as a 
magistrate* unless he be called to that dignity, and vested with that 
authority annexed to it by superior powers. JNfay it would be highly 
ridiculous in any man to intrude himself into the very meanest 
office, even of a private family, without the express or presumed 
consent of the master or mistress of it. This is the established 
order of the government of the world, and so manifestly conform? 
fbble to reason and common sense, that without it all states, or 
kingdoms, or even lesser societies, would be no better than so 
many multitudes of disorder and confusion, 

Now the same principle is applicable to the church as well as to 
& secular state, but with this material difference ; that as every se- 
cular state formed itself at first by common consent into a civil so- 
ciety, so had it the liberty to choose what form of government, and 
establish what laws it pleased for the public good. But the church 
as such is a divine society, a* having a divine origin. For it was 
not established by men but by God himself, Jesus Christ, Qod 
and Man iwas ts immediate founder and lawgiver ; and he is still 
its supreme divine head, governor, and sovereign pastor. It is 
therefore bound to keep those laws, that form of government under 
him, and that method of conveying it down, which was at first es- 
tablished by him. Nor is there any power upon earth can either 
change the laws, or dispense with the conditions, or deviate from 
the ways and methods he has marked out to us. 

Here then we need but consult the word of God to inform our- 
selves, upon what footing the conveyance of the ecclesiastical mi- 
nistry is established by him. Let us first hear Christ himself speak 
in th<? following sacred words : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he 
that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up 
some other way, the same is a thief and a robber ;" John x. 1. 
Here all are declared thiev«s and robbers, that is, usurpers of the 



WITHOUT A LAWFUL Mmm(h% 



143 



sacred ministry, who enter not by the door. And least we should 
mistake tlte meaning of this figurative expression, he explains it 
thus : ver. 7- " Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of 
the sheep." So that whoever enters upon the ministry, and has 
not his mission from Christ either immediately, as the apostles had, 
or mediately by deriving it from I hem or their lawful successors, 
are here marked out in the character of thieves and robber*. — 
Whence it plainly follow*, that any society of men, let them be as 
numerous as they please, or boast of their purify as ffltzci 
as tbey please, can never be a true church, if it has not a 
ministry originally derived from Christ by an uninterrupted suc- 
cession of lawful pastors : because the true church can never be 
without true pastors ; and without a ministry originally derived 
from Christ by an uninterrupted succession in the same communion 
there can be no true pastors. 

This then is the foundation of the ecclesiastical ministry laid by 
Christ himself; and St. Paul his faithful apostle and interpreter, 
teaches the same doctrine in his epistle to the Romans, C x. 15. 
" How can they preach unless they be sent ?'. For if they be not 
sent they can be nothing else but intruders into the sheepfeld, 
usurpers of the sacred ministry, and, in a word, thieves and robbers. 

But the example of Ciirist himself, is most certainly of the 
greatest weight to convince us, that no man can legally enter upon 
the sacred ministry, except he be sent according to the order es- 
tablished by God. For if the Son of God took not upon him the 
preaching of the gospel but as sent by his eternal Father, what sa- 
crilegious arrogance and presumtion must it then be in men to as- 
sume to themselves this sacred function without a commission from 
any lawful authority ? Our Savionr therefore, to render us sensible 
of the necessity of a true mission for every minister of the gospel, 
judged it requisite upon several occasions to prove his own mission 
to the Jews. I shall omit a great many passages for brevity's sake, 
and only quote a few from St. John, who writes thus : " Now about 
the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught : 
and the Jews marvelled, saying, how knoweth this man letters 
having never learned ? Jesus answered them and said, my doctrine 
is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he 
will know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak 
of myself. He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory, but 
he that seeketh his glory that sent me, the same is true and no 
unrighteousness is in him ;" John vii. 14. 15, &c. 

However the Jews persisting still to question his authority, he 
answered them, " I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is 
true, whom ye know not. But I know Him, for I am from him, 
and he hath sent me." vii. 28. 29. 

Again the following words are very remarkable. " He that re- 
jecteth me, and receiveth not ray words, hath one that judgeth 
him, For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent 



144 



NO LAWFUL MINISTRY 



me, He gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I 
should speak John xii. 48. 49, 

Here our Saviour declares positively, that he spoke nothing but 
what he was commanded to speak by his Father, And this implies 
no less, than that if ho had preached any doctrine, either contrary 
to, or beyond the commission he had received from his Father 
(which indeed the impeccability of his sacred person rendered im- 
possible) he would have preached without the authority requisite 
for that function. 

However, to render us still more sensible of the necessity of an 
uncontested mission, our Saviour will prove his by a great~number of 
illustrious miracles ; and more particularly by that which, for its 
circumstances, appeared more illustrious than the rest : for though 
all the miracles of his life were to shew from whom he came, as 
they did by the divine power and goodness which shined in them ; 
yet the raising of Lazarus, and the loud prayer he made to his 
Father before it, were not only intended, but expressly declared to 
be done, for the notifying and proving of that mission, from which 
alone all other true missions were to be derived afterwards to the 
end of the world. For St. John expressly tells us, that when he 
was on i he point of raising Lazarus, ' he lifted up his eyes and said, 
Father I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I know that 
thou hearest me always : but because of the people which stand by, 
I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me/ Jehn xi. 
41. 42. It is plain our Saviour here proves his mission from the 
miraculous power given him to "raise Lazarus, as being a divine and 
public testimony of it, since it was asked for that very end in the 
people's own hearing, and no sooner asked but granted. 

Thus did our Saviour take care not only to assert but prove his 
mission, in order to mark out clearly to his church the sacred 
source, from whence the lawful exercise of the ecclesiastical minis- 
try must indispensably flow. Christ himself had his mission from 
God, 4 Who gave him all power in Heaven and on earth ;' Matt, 
xxviii. 18. He communicated it to his apostles, * As my Father 
sent me, even so I send you;' John xx. 21. And again. " Go 
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c.' Matt, xxviii. 
19- The apostles, as the church increased, ordained bishops and 
priests according to the power they had received from Christ, and 
assigned to each of them the particular churches they were to feed 
and govern. These took care to transmit the same power to their 
successors, as these did likewise to theirs. And so the saered mi- 
nistry of governing and feeding the flock of Christ, by preaching 
the word and administering the sacraments, has been handed down 
by an uninterrupted succession from the apostles throughout all 
ages to the present time, and will be continued in the same manner 
to the end of the world, according to St. Paul, Eph. iv, 11; 12, 13. 

For this reason Tertullian, in his book of Prescriptions, C. 37, 
pressed the heretics of his lime with this quesdon : Qui estis vos ? 



WITHOUT A LAWFUL MISSION. 



145 



Quando 4* unde venistis ? Who are you ? when and whence did 
you come ? Whence have you your mission ? How can you prove 
that you have entered by the door and are not thieves and robbers? 
The same Tertullian, C. 3. writes thus : " let them produce (says 
he) the origin of their church, let them give us a list of their bi- 
shops, drawn down by succession from the beginning, so that their 
first bishop was either an apostle, or an apostolical man continuing 
to the end, in the communion of the apostles for his predecessor," 
In effect the constant practice of the ancient fathers, to prove 
against .heretics the truth of the doctrine taught by the Catholic 
church, was by shewing this uninterrupted succession of Catholic 
bishops and pastors from the same commnion from the apostles, 
and on the contrary to defy their adversaries to shew any such suc- 
cession of bishops teaching the discriminating doctrine of their 
sects. 

St. Cyprien, Epist. 76, says of Novation, that * he was not in the 
church, nor could he be counted a bishop (as to the power of juris- 
diction) because despising apostolical tradition, he came of himself, 
and succeeded to no body,' to wit, in his own communion. 

* A succession of bishops' (says St. Austin, contra Epist. Fund. 
C. 4.) 4 descending from the see of St. Peter to the present episco- 
pacy, holds me in the Catholic church.' And St. Optatus writes 
tnus to the Donatists : < since you pretend to be the church of G*>d, 
shew the origin of your bishops ? For if they had pretended to 
produce a catalogue of bishops descending from the apostles, they 
would have been answered that those were not bishops of the Dona- 
tist, but of the Catholic church, and that therefore Donatus himself 
was the first bishop of the separate church he had set up, and could 
shew no succession of bishops that were before him of his commu- 
nion. 

This shews plainly, what the ancient fathers thought of all com- 
munions that had separated themselves from the Catholic church, 
and that they regarded them no otherwise than as usurpers of the 
ecclesiastical ministry, as invaders of the priestly office, and in a 
word as societies destitute of all power and authority of either 
preaching the word, or administering the sacraments ; the conse- 
quence whereof is, that they were no part of the true church of 
Christ, from which the true ministry is wholly inseparable. Nay, 
Mr. Lesly, a writer of the church of England, well known, has the. 
same contemptible opinion of all the dissenting Protestant churches 
as the fathers had of the heretical and schismatical communions of 
their times ; for in his treatise of private Judgment and Authority^ 
p. 222. he writes thus : ' the dissenters have no commission or suc- 
cession to shew ; they have thrust themselves as guides upon the 
road towards heaven upon their own heads not above one hundred 
and forty years ago, in utter contempt and opposition to all the 
guides of God's appointment from the days of the apostles.' — 
Whence he justly concludes, that they have no authority at all ei- 

v 



146 



NO LAWFUL MINISTRY 



her to preach the word, or administer the holy sacraments which 
God ha* instituted, or to bless in his name. 

Here Mr. Lesly agrees exactly with me in the important princi- 
ple 1 have laid down ; and I should be glad he agreed as well with 
me in the application of it. But how unjust are men in their ba- 
lances ? How clear-sighted are they in seeking the defects of * 
others, and how blind at the same time not to see their own in the 
ver}' same kind ? 

He tells us first, the dissenters have no commission or succession 
to shew. I grant they have not. But how will he shew the com- 
mission of succession of the Protestant church of England? since 
it is an undeniable fact, that for nine hundred years together be- 
fore the pretended reformation of that church, all her bishops were 
in communion with the church of Rome, and agreed with her in 
sacraments, doctrine, and practice ; as in monastical vows, in pray- 
for the relief of the dead, in the invocation of saints, in adoring the 
blessed sacrament, and receiving the definitions of former councils 
for transubstantiation, the veneration of holy images and relics, and 
the Pope's supremacy, &c. 

First, then, I ask, from whom the first Protestant bishops of the 
church of England had their commission to teach a doctriue, di- 
rectly opposite in all the forementioned articles to that of all the 
Catholic bishops their predecessors ? if they pretend to have hud 
it from them, the thing is wholly incredible, as will appear more 
fully herea&er. Yet I cannot imagine how they came by it any 
other way, unless it was sent them immediately from Heaven, and 
so their mission was extraordinary like that of the apostles ; which 
also will not be easily believed without good proofs, and I fear it 
will be a hard task to tind any. 

I ask, 2dly, from whom the first Protestant bishops of the church, 
of England derived their succession ; that is, from what bishop of 
their own communion, since all the English bishops before them 
were Roman Catholics, that is, m the communion of the bishop of 
Rome ? If they alledge the validity of their ordination, and their 
being in possession of the ancient episcopal sees of their Catholic 
predecessors, who certainly derived their succession from the apos- 
tles ? I answer, that though their ordination were valid, which we 
utterly deny, this would be insufncent to prove their succession to 
be truly apostolical ; because there is something more required to 
make good this title than a valid ordination, and the possession of 
the episcopal sees of their predecessors, viz. their being members 
of the same church and communion with those, whose successors 
they pretend to be. For otherwise it will follow, that the Arian 
and Donatist bishops were the true successors of the apostles, be- 
cause their ordination was most certainly valid, and they rilled the 
ancient sees of the Catholic bishops their predecessors : but since 
it would be highly absurd to grant this (because persons cut off by 
heresy, and excommunication from the church founded by the apos- 



WITHOUT A LAWFUL MISSION. 



147 



ties, cannot possibly be called their true successors) it is manifest 
the English Protestant clergy will never prove their succession to 
be apostolical, unless they can convince us that they are members 
of the same church and communion with the Catholic bishops that 
went before them, any more than the Arian and Donatist bishops 
formerly were. Hence it plainly follows, that if some expedient be 
not found out to fill up a gap of nine hundred years, in all which 
space of time there were no Protestant bishops or parsons in the 
whole kingdom of Great Britain, they may as well pretend to de- 
rive their succession from Aaron as from the apostles. 

But to return back to Mr. Lesly. Pie tells us, 2dly, " that the 
dissenters thrust themselves as guides upon the road towards 
Heaven upon their own heads,, not above one hundred and forty 
years ago." And pray how many more years ago is it, that the 
bishops and parsons of the reformed church of England appeared 
iirst as guides upon the road towards Heaven ? If Mr. Lesly be 
unwilling to satisfy his Protestant brethren in a point of that im- 
portance, I shall do it for him. The pretended reformation of Eng- 
land began about the year 1533, and queen Elizabeth came not to 
the crown ti ll Ann. 1558. So that it was not finished till some years 
after the middle of that century. Now if we count back one hun- 
dred and forty years from the time that Mr. Lesly wrote his book 
of private Judgment and Authority^ we may, by a very easy com- 
putation, discover the exact epocha of time, when his Protestant 
bishops and parsons appeared first as guides upon the road towards 
Hsaven •> and the difference of age between his church, and that of 
the dissenters will be found to be so inconsiderable, as no ways de- 
served his notice. We are likewise sure the Protestant guides of 
the church of England were never sen! or sought for by any of the 
Fopisli bishops, their predecessors ; and so the likewise sympathize 
in this with the dissenters, that they thrust themselves as guides 
upon the road of their own heads ; unless they will claim an etraor- 
dinary mission immediately from God $ for which, if they can shew 
the testimony of miracles, as the apostles did, we shall be ready to 
believe them. 

Lastly, Mr, Lesly tells us, that the dissenters thrust themselves 
as, guides upon the road in utter contempt and opposition to all the 
guides of God's appointment from the days of the apostles. It seems 
then that there weFe guides of God's appointment from the very 
time of the apostles till the pretended reformation ; and if they were 
of God's appointment, were they Protestants or Papists ? They 
could not be Protestants before there were any reformed churches 
in being j it is plain then they were all Papists before the reforma- 
tion, at least in the island of Great Britain, where no religion but 
Popery was ever professed for nine hundred years together, till the 
change of it introduced hy Henry VIII., carried on by Edward VI., 
and finished by queen Elizabeth. It was therefore effected in utter 
contempt and opposition to all the bishops and pastors, who had 



148 



THE DISAGREEMENT 



been the guides of God's appointment for nine hundred years 
together. 

And how then can Mr. Lesly reproach the dissenters with this 
unwarrantable proceeding, since it is plain they only followed the 
example his church had set them ? Nay, may we not legally con- 
clude against him, as he does against the dissenters, that his church 
has no authority at all either to preach the word or administer the 
holy sacraments which God has instituted, or to bless in his name ? 
And so, according to his own principle, she is no part of the true 
church of Christ as being destitute of a lawful mission, and guilty 
of having usurped the sacred ministry w ithout commission or suc- 
cession. 

Bat let that be as it will, it is manifest, both from scripture end 
tradition, that there can be no lawful ministry without a lawful 
mission : which is precisely the principle I have established Nor 
do I know any Protestant so unreasonable as to deny it, though 
they all differ from us in the application of it. On the contrary, 
all the reformed churches labour with their utmost force to prove 
the legality of their mission, some one way, some another ; and it 
shall now be my business to prove t*»at it is impossible for any of 
them to make good their title ; which if I do, every Protestant, 
whatever reformed church he is a member of, must be sensible that 
he is out of tise way of salvation, because salvation cannot be at- 
tained to in a church, in which there is no lawful administration of 
the sacraments, or under the conduct of guides who have not enter- 
ed into the sheepfold by the door, and are stigmatized by 
Christ himself with the infamous character of thieves and 
robbers. 



ARTICLE II. 

Hie Disagreement amongst Protestants concerning their Mission* 

Disagreement and contradictions in a dispute about a title, 
which for its importance ought to be clear and uncontested, is of 
itself a strong proof of its nullity. There is not, for example, a 
bishop or inferior pastor in the communion of the church of Rome 
but can prove the validity of his title to the sacred ministry as 
clearly, as an officer in the army can shew his commission for the 
respecti"e post he holds ; and it cannot be doubted but the reform- 
ed churches would prove theirs with the same uncontested evidence, 
and there w^ould be the same harmony amongst them in this point, 
as there is amongst Roman Catholics, if their title to the ministry 
were grounded upon a solid foundation like that of the church of 
Home ? Whereas, on the contrary, nothing perplexes Protestants 
mure than the question Tertullian put to the heretics of his time 



AMONGST PROTESTANTS, ETC. 



149 



44 who are von ? whence did you come ?" that is, when we press 
them to give an account of their mission or vocation to the ministry 
of the gospel ; because the first reformers having broke off from the 
communion of the whole world (as both Luther and Calvin attest 
in their writings) it is hard to conceive what way a lawful mission 
could possibly be conveyed to them ; and if the iirst reformers had 
no lawful mission, their successors can have none. 

Here then they all find themselves involved in an inextricable 
labyrinth of difficulties, what way soever they turn themselves ; and. 
they vary in their opinions about it just according as they are press- 
ed on this or that side by the arguments of their adversaries. They, 
who chiefly considerable difficulty of maintaining their pretensions 
to an ordinary mission, fly for sanctuary to an extraordinary one ; 
and they who find themselves driven out of - this entrenchment, 
endeavour to make the best shift they can by having recourse to 
an ordinary one. 

Luther and Calvin, with some others, as they were the apostles 
of the reformation, so we find them at the head of that party which 
stood up for an extraordinary mission ; for they considered that 
they had set up a new gospel, a new church government, a new 
ministry, a new communion, and had separated themselves from all 
Christian societies in the worlqh They judged it therefore the 
best and safest course they could take, never to trouble their heads 
with proving their ordinary mission^ which they plainly saw was a 
defenceless cause, and so resolved to set a good bold face upon the 
matter, and challenge to themselves an immediate mission to reform 
the church, not from men, but from God himself. But lest those, 
who may be sensible of the folly and extravagance of this preten- 
sion should suspect the truth of it, and imagine I pretend to tight 
against my own shadow, X shall prove it by the clearest evidence 
from their own writings. 

First, Martin Luther, speaks thus of himseif: 'lam sure (says 
he) I have my doctrine from Heaven.' Tom. 2. Fol. 333. And 
again ; 6 I was the first to whom God vouchsafed to reveal the 
things which have been preached to you. 5 Tom. 7. Fol. 274. and 
Tom. 2. Fol. 305. he writes thus : 6 since now I am certain I preach 
the word of God, it is not fit I should want a title for the recom- 
mending of this word and work of the ministry, to which I am 
called by God : which I have not •received of men, nor by men, 
but by the gift of God and revelation of Jesus Christ.' This is a 
plain and positive averring that he had not his doctrine by succes- 
sion from any that went before him, nor by consequence from the 
apostolical church, which surely was before him ; and this alone 
suffices to condemn him and his doctrine, unless he can prove ef- 
fectually that he had it immediately from Heaven. 

Calvin is full as plain upon the. matter, Epist. 190, to the king 
of Poland, where he writes thus : ' Since by the Pope's tyranny 
the succession has been interrupted; the church could not be ie-. 



150 



THE DISAGREEMENT 



established without a new ministry- — So that the commission our 
Saviour gave us to assemble the churches was wholly extraordi- 
nary. And since the supporters of true piety appeared suddenly in 
an extraordinary manner, their vocation is not to be examined by 
the common rules, but they were raised immediately by God, to 
the end that having established the churches, they should ordain 
other pastors to succeed them.' 

In another work, entitled the true Method of Reforming the 
Churchy he writes in the following manner : 4 1 have already said 
that an ordinary vocation is necessary when the state of the church 
js uncorrupted, or at least tolerable ; but will this tie up the hand 
of God, and hinder him from raising, in an extraordinary manner, 
prophets and other ministers to re-establish his church, when it is 
utterly ruined ?' Then he proceeds ta apply this to the first 
reformers, as men raised by God in an extraordinary manner. 

Theodorus Beza who succeeded Cavin in the government of the 
church of Geneva, maintained the same in his conference with the 
cardinal of Lorrain at Poissy, where he tells his adversary, ' that 
though some of the first reformers might have insisted upon their 
mission as derived from the church of Rome, yet they voluntarily 
renounced, their ordination as the mark of the beast, and chose ra- 
ther to. depend upon on extraordinary vocation because the 
ordinary mission was in reality extinguished in the Roman 
church, which there was nothing but a horrible disorder and 
confusion.'' Mist. Eccl. p. 580. 

But he explains himself more fully in a dispute- lie had with a 
Protestant writer, called Adrian Saravias, who, in a book written 
by h im concerning the degrees of ministers of the gospel, maintain- 
ed that particularly those of the first reformers, who had been or- 
dained in the church of Rome, stood in no need of an extraordinary 
mission, but that the ordinary one they had received by virtue of 
their ordination? sufficed ; and as for others, he said, that every 
Christian, well instructed in the scripture, had. both a power and 
obligation to reform all, abuses and errors that were crept into the 
church. 

This latter part of 'his opinion Beza refutes bytelling him, that at. 
that rate 'every man that has but a good opinion of his own ( learning 
will, under pretence of reforming the church, set up for a preacher 
of a new gospel, and form separate assemblies as Anabaptists and, 
Libertines are wont to do ; but God forbid (says he) that we should 
open a gate to such a pernicious licentiousness.' And so far he 
had most certainly truth on his side,. 

But he rejects the other part of Saravias's opinion with a great 
deal of heat. * Pray (says he) what sort of ordinary vocation is 
that, which you attribute to all but a few of those who were raised 
by God ? You cannot but mean a Papistical vocation, since it ap- 
pears plainly enough from what you say, that if the bishops of 
France should now withdraw themselves and their churches from 



AMONGST PROTESTANTS, ETC. 



151 



the Pope's tyranny, and purge them of all idolatry and superstition, 
they would stand in no need of any other vocation than what they 
have already. What ! can we imagine that Papistical ordinations, 
which are no better than an infamous commerce with the Romish 
harlot, and more polluted than the pay of prostitutes forbid by 
God to be offered in his Temple, which impowers some to corrupt 
the gospel instead of preaching it, and others only to offer sacrifice, 
which is a most horrible abomination : can we imagine, I say, that 
these wicked ordinations should stand good in such a manner, that 
as often as God gives the grace to any of these spurious bishops to 
come over to true Christianity, all the impurity of their ordination 
should be immediately purged away ? But with what face or con- 
fidence will any one, whose heart God has touched, pretend to de- 
test Popery without abjuring the irregular ordination he has re- 
ceived? or if he abjures it, bow can he assume an authority to preach 
in virtue of it? I do not deny, indeed, that when such persons 
are found to be well instructed, edyfying in their lives, and capable 
of feeding the flock, they may be re-ordained, and of spurious bi- 
shops rendered legitimate pastors. 

It is plain then what Calvin and Beza thought of the mission of 
the first reformers ; which is still more confirmed by the profession 
of faith required to be made by the Hugonots of France, in the 
composing whereof these two reforming apostles had the chief 
hand. The 31st article of it is thus worded : * we believe that 
no man ought by his own authority to arrogate to himself the go- 
vernment of the church, but that it ought to be conferred by elec- 
tion as far as is possible and God will permit ; which exception we 
add expressly, because it has been necessary sometimes, and even 
in our days (in which the state of the church was interruped) that 
God should raise persons in an extraordinary manne? to re-esta- 
blish the church, fallen into ruin and desolation,' 

This article contains three things. 1. The general rule. 2. 
The exception from this general rule. And 3. The application 
of this exception to the first reformers. The general rule is, that 
no man ought by his own authority to arrogate to himself the gov- 
ernment of the church, but it ought to be conferred by election — 
The exception is, that God permits sometimes that the observance 
of this rule is impracticable, and then he raises men in an extraor- 
dinary manner to supply the defect of an ordinary vocation. And 
the application of this exception to the first reformers is, that it 
has been necessary sometimes, and even in our days (in which the 
state of the church was interrupted) to raise persons in an extra>>r- 
dinary manner to re-establish the church, fallen into ruin and 
desolation. 

Whence it is plain, that if the first reformers had exercised the 
ministry by virtue of an ordinary vocation, they would have been 
comprehended wiihin the general rule, and not within the except ioo> 



152 



THE DISAGREEMENT 



in Sapp f sing them to have been in such circums'ances, that God 
did not permit the ordinary voca i n io lake place. 

Conformably to this article the synod of Gap, held Ann. 1603, 
decreed, that, it should be maintained in its full force, without in- 
sisting upon nny ordinary vocation derived from the church of 
Rome. The decree of that synod was delivered in the following 
words. 4 Concerning the 31st article of our profession of faith, the 
question being put, upon what foundation the authority our first 
pastors had of preaching and reforming the church was to be set- 
tled, whether it should be upon their mission derived from the 
church of Rome ? the assembly resolved, that it should be wholly 
ascribed to an extraordinary vocation, whereby God moved them 
interiorly in an extraordinary manner, and not to the title they had 
still left of the corrupt mission of the church of Rome.' 

And in the same profession of faith, Art. 28, they declare V at 
8 they condemn all Popish assemblies, because the pure word of 
God is banished out of them, and the holy sacraments are cor- 
rupted, bastardized, falsified, or rather entirely annihilated, and 
all idolatry and superstition is practised in them ; and ti>at who- 
ever follows their practices or communicates with them, cuts him- 
self off from the mystical body of Jesus Christ/ 

From all these proofs it is manifest, that I have not deviated 
from truth in attributing, both to Luther and Calvin, and many of 
ttieir followers, the folly and extravagance of pretending to an ex- 
trordinary mission, or immediate vocation from God ; but those 
Avho followed fchera some years after, finding it impossible to stand 
their ground against the force of the arguments urged by Catholic 
divines against this presumptuous and exorbitant pretension of their 
first reformers, were reduced to the necessity of taking up with an 
ordinary mission, and maintaining that their forefathers had no 
other- 

But here again they are forced to run into disagreeing systems. 
Some of those who are for an ordinary mission, being convinced 
that in all ages it was continued by the succession of bishops, stand 
up for episcopal ordination, and maintain consequently that there 
can be no lawful ministry without it ; and thus far they agree with 
the church of Rome. But then as to the exercise af episcopal or 
pastoral jurisdiction, some (as the Protestants of Sweden and 
Denmark) will have it depend upon the superior consistory ; others, 
as Cranmer, on the prince's will and pleasure ; and others assert 
again iis independency on ihe civil power, which is the opinion of 
many in England, and these derive its source from the ciiurch of 
Rome. 

But the Protestants of France, not believing episcopacy to be of 
divine ins i u'ion, have taken up a system wholly different from 
these. The famous minister Claude, to prove the Protestant mis- 
sion to be ordinary, thinks it sufficient to shew that their first pas- 
tors were established by the people, in whom he places the source 



AMONGST PROTESTANTS, ETC. 



153 



of authority and vocation ; and therefore in his defence of the re- 
formation, p, 345, he maintains, that provided the people call a 
man to the ministry, and lie gives his consent, this gives him a 
lawful mission without any other formality. 

The minister Jurieu, in his answer to Mons. Nicol, p. 573, lays 
this f<»r the f undation of his system, viz. That as every civil so- 
ciety has a natural right to choose its own officers or magistrates for 
the civil government, and make what laws it thinks most fitting for 
its preservation, so every church has no less a natural righ*. (that 
is, independent of any divine institution) to choose its own guides 
and rulers, and make its own laws for the same end, 

But this is putting the church of Christ upon the same footing 
with the secular state, without any regard to the difference there is 
between them both as to their first institution, and the end of it. — 
For (as I have already observed) all secular stages are mere politi- 
cal societies formed by men, and tending to an end that is merely 
human, they are therefore subject to the will and pleasure of men, 
who may choose what rulers, and instal them by what just methods 
they think fit. But the church, as such, is a society, which has 
Christ himself for its immediate founder and lawgiver, and is 
therefore tied down to tiie laws his infinite wisdom has established 
for its government, and the continuation and conveyance of its mi- 
nistry ; so that every national church, as it is a part of the church 
in general, and by consequence subject to such laws as regard the 
whole church, is bound to follow those laws. 

The end of its establishment is likewise wholly spiritual, to wit, 
the salvation of souls ; which end cannot be attained but by the 
supernatural means of grace, nor grace but by the sacraments 
which Christ (who is the only master both of his grace, and of the 
way of conveying it to us) has instituted as so many channels for 
the conveyance of it to our souls ; and the administration whereof, 
together* with the preaching of the holy word, he committed to his 
aposiles and their successors, descending from them by a spiritual 
generation according to the methods established by him. And so 
Mr. Jurieu's fine parrallel between a national church and a nation- 
state is a mere empty flourish, fit only to impose upon the ignorant 
laity, whose vanity it agreeably flatters by making them the source 
of all authority both civil and ecclesiastic. 

Thus we see the disagreement and confusion amongst Protest- 
ants, concerning a point of the greatest importance, and upon which 
the whole superstructure of the reformation depends, as upon a 
foundation without which it cannot possibly subsist. It has been 
fully shewed, 1. That nothing less than an extraordinary missson 
was claimed by the first reformers. 2. That though some of their 
followers endeavoured at first to support this extravagant pretension 
the greatvst part have since rejected it as a defenceless cause, and 
stand up for an ordinary mission. And 3. That these advocates 
for an ordinary mission, are all at variance amongst themselves 

w 



154 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAT) 



about ti e manner of its conveyance, aud put to the hardest shifts 
to patch it up as well as tl ey can. 

I shall therefore now proceed to prove, that the first reformers 
had no mission at all, either ordinary or extraordinary, but. climbed 
up to the sheepfold by another way, like thieves and robbers. And 
if the Hrst reformers had no mission, I am sure their successors in 
the sacred ministry can have none ; because no man can transmit 
to another what he has not himself: nay we may as well say ihat 
a son can inherit a good estate of a father who iias not a groat to 
leave him. So that if the very fathers of the reformation i.ad not a 
lawful mission, it is an unconceivable riddle how their children 
should come by it, as it is inconceivable h w the successors of the 
apostles should have had a lawful mission, if the apostles themselves 
had none. Whence I conclude, that if ir be made manifest that 
the first reformers were wholly destitute of such a mission, it will 
likewise be fully proved that their successors are in the same unhap- 
py condition ; and that t f iey who are members of any of the reform- 
ed churches founded by them, as they continue to be abbettors of 
their sacrilegious usurpation of the holy ministry, can be regarded 
no otherwise than as persons, who are out of the true church of 
Christ, in which alone salvation can be attained. 



ARTICLE III. 

The first reformers had no extraordinary Mission. 

Whenever it has pleased God to raise men in an extraordinary 
manner to be the guides of his people (as he raised Moses to lead 
them out of Egypt, and as he raised ti.e apostles to preach ihe evan- 
gelical law to the whole world) he never failed to distinguish them 
by such uncontestable marks of their extraordinary mission, as 
were a solid motive to the people to form a rational judgment upon, 
that they were undoubtedly sent by God, and that he had bestowed 
those marks upon them as a declaration and testimony of ids will, 
that they were bound to acknowledge them for their pastors, and 
suffer themselves to be guided by them. And this is so perfectly 
conformable to the usual methods of God s infinite wisdom and 
goodness, in providing means proper for their respective ends (es- 
pecially in relation to things immediately appertaining to the sal- 
vation of souls, redeemed with the sacred blood of Jesus Christ) 
that without it the people guarded against the seduction of false 
guides, who might equally pretend to an immediate commission 
from God ; and so every imposter might set up for an inspired man, 
and put his cheats upon the people, under the cover of this religious 
mask. 



NO EXTRAORDINARY MISSION. 



155 



It is therefore necessary the poople should have some sure marks 
to distinguish lawful pastors from seducers ; but more especially 
when new doctrines are proposed to them, whereof there is but one 
example either recorded in the New Testament, or ever allowed of 
by the Catholic church, viz. the first preaching of the evangelical 
law, which doubtless was a new law and a new doctrine ; and 
therefore the persons chosen immediately by God fur this great 
work were clearly distinguished from imposters or seducers by 
three marks, to wit, holiness of life in a most eminent degree, holi- 
ness or purity of doctrine and the gift of miracles. These were 
the marks, by which the faithful were fully assured that the apos- 
tles had their commission from God ; for nothing was more holy 
than their lives, nothing purer than their doctrine, and God decla- 
red himself to be the author of it, by giving them the power of 
working the most stupendous miracles in confirmation of it. 

But I find nothing of these marks of an extraordinary vocation in 
any of the first reformers. For as to holiness of life, the very best 
amongst them were only so because they were not quite so bad 
as the rest, and their greatest admirers could never commend them 
either for austerity of life, or any one eminent virtuous quality that 
raised them above the ordinary level of mankind : nay, there was 
not one amongst them but was guilty of the deadly sin of calumny 
in a very high degree, in aspersing and misrepresenting the doctrine 
of their mother church, as the only means to give some colour to 
their apostacy. 

But some of them were eminent for nothing but the viciousness 
of their lives ; witness Martin Luther, the very patriarch of the re- 
formation i who lias left us in his own writings such monuments of 
his haughty, scurrilous, unmortified, nay even, vicious and impious 
disposition, that l-is greatest enemies could not paint him in black- 
er colours than he has done himself as will appear more fully here- 
after, when I come to speak of his docirine. 

Carolostadius,, another head reformer, is a second instance of 
this truth. He was <he first amongst the reforming priests who 
married publicly ; and Melancthon, who was personally acquainted 
with him, gives him the character of an ignorant and brutal man, 
void of piety and humanity, and rather a Jew than a Christian ; 
though of a crafty and turbulent nature. Lib. Testim. Pr-ef. Most 
excellent qualifications to fit a man for a reformer of the church of 
Christ, called by God in an extraordinary manner. 

I omit others to avoid prolixity, or appearing to take a pleasure 
in exposing the memory of persons, who have long since had their 
trial at the great tribunal. But I cannot forbear saying something 
of archbishop Cranmer, the first reformer of the church of England, 
and Burnet's chief hero in his unfaithful history of the English re- 
formation. But with all his skill in daubing over and disguisin 
historical facts, he cannot hinder an impartial reader from formin 



156 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



this judgment of his hero;* viz. that if, instead of reformiu g his 
mother church, he had applied himself to reform the irregularities 
of his own life; it is probable England would not have become 
the theatre of those astonishing as well as scandalous disorders, 
publicly committed during the last thirteen years of king Henry s 
reign, whereof he was the chief author by his pernicious counsels, 
and base compliances with that prince. And yet this man, who had 
delivered up the ecclesiastical authority to prophane secular hands, 
sacrificed the patrimony of the church to the avarice of his prince, 
prostituted his conscience to all his disorderly lusts, played the 
hypocrite, and dissembled his religion for at least thirteen years 
together ; this man, I say, was in the f blowing re gn, in quality of 
primate of England, the chief ecclesiastical tool of the court in 
promoting all the changes of religion then set on foot, which were 
varnished over with the plausible name of a godly reformation — 
But is it then possible that God should be the author of a work, 
when such wicked men as these are the principal actors in it ? — 
Does he usually employ such instrumenls as these to bring about 
Ms designs of an extraordinary mercy ? If the thing be not abso- 
lutely impossible, it is at least without example : and I cannot but 
think it much more comfortable, both to reason and the usual ways 
of providence, to say, that when wicked men prosper in their de- 
signs, they are not instruments chosen by God in his mercy, but 
suffered by him in his anger, as scourges to punish the sins of the 
people. 

It is plain, however, that Ihe first reformers were wholly desti- 
tute of the first mark of an extraordinary vocation, to wit, holiness 
holiness of life. Now then let us see whether they were distin- 
guished from false guides by the second, to wit, holiness or 
or purity of doctrine, which is wholly indispensible, because false 
doctrines can only have the father of lies for their author. It is true 
indeed that their boast at first, in order to impose upon the weak- 
ness and credulity of the people, was, that they would teach no- 
thing but the pure word of God ; but they fell very short of per- 
forming this noble promise, whereof I shall give some few remark- 
able instances. 

First, the word of God teaches very plainly, that vows made to 
God are binding ; " when thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy 
God, thou shalt not slack to pay it — that which is gone out of thy 
lips thou shalt keep and perform ;" Deut xxiii. 21, 23. And St. 
Paul says of widows consecrated to God, that " when they have 
grown wanton in Christ, they will marry, having damnation to 
themselves, because they have cut off their first faith ; 1 Tim. v. 
11, 12. But the first reformers could not relish this holy doctrine, 
and made bold to give the word of God the lie by teaching public- 
ly, that monastical vows did not oblige persons of either sex that 
had made them. According both pens and pulpits were employed 
to encourage the violation of them, and scriptural texts were taught 
* See the Supplement in the End. 



NO EXTRAORDINARY MISSION. 



157 



to speak a language agreeable to flesh and blood. But because 
example is usually more prevalent than words, Martin Luther, an 
Austin-friar, to the everlasting shame of the reformation, thought 
fit to confirm by his own practice the doctrine he had preached ; 
and least the female sex should want an example of the same kind, 
he made choice of a nun for his bride, and so became guilty of adou- 
ble sacrilege. Their example, how exhorbitantly scandalous soever, 
was followed by many, who otherwise would never have thought of 
changing their state, And thus, apostate friars, priests and nuns, 
became the nursing fathers and mothers of the reformed churches, 
and the new gospel was propagated like mankind after the fall of 
Adam, not by a spiritual but carnal generation. 

2dly, It is manifest from the word of God, that " the state of 
virginity is encouraged by Christ," Matt. xix. 11, 12. and recom- 
mended in express terms by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii, 7. 8. " I would 
(says he) that all men were even as myself— I say therefore to the 
unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I." 
And again ; " so then he that giveth his daughter in marriage doth 
well, but he that giveth her not doth better f 38. Whence it fol* 
lows by an undeniable consequence, that the state of perpetual vir- 
ginity is possible by the help of God's grace ; for otherwise it 
could not be lawfully recommended. But Martin Luther scrupled 
not to contradict the word of God, and maintain the absolute im-. 
possibility, nay, unlawfulness of it. 

Let us hear his own words. * God declares (says he) that he- 
will have no man live unmarried, but to be multiplied — If any man 
resolves to continue unmarried, let him put off the name of man,, 
and make it appear that he is an angel or spirit ; for to man, God 
does not allow it by any means.' EpisL ad Wolf. Tom 7* Fol. 
505.1. 

Again, Serm. de Matrim. Tom. 5. Fol. 119- 1. he writes thus: 
< increase and multiply is not a precept, but more than a precept^, 
that is to say, a divine work — wnich is as necessary as to be a man,, 
and more necessary than to eat, drink, sleep and wake — As it is not 
in my power not to be a man, so it is not in my choice to be without 
a woman, *>nd agnin, as it is not in thy power not to be a woman, so 
it is not in thy choice to live without a man. 

Nay, his extravagance went still farther ; for although polygamy,, 
that is, the plurality of wives or husbands, he positively condemn** 
ed in the New Testament, he blushed not to teach the lawfulness 
of it, as will appear from the following pieces. * What if one of 
the married couple (says he) should refuse to be reconciled to the 
other and would absolutely live separate, and the other not being 
able to contain should be forced to seek another consort, what must 
he do ? may he contract with another ? I answer that without 
doubt he may.' In 1 Cor. 7, Tom. 5. Fol. 3. 2, 

* Put the case (says he) that one should fly from the other till 
there has been a third or fourth marriage, may the husband marry 



158 



SHE FIRST REFORMERS HAU 



another wife as often as his former leaves him, so as to have ten or 
more of these deserters still alive ? Again, may the wife have ten 
or more husbands who are all fled ? I answer that we cannot stop 
St. Paul's mouth, nor contend with such as think fit to make use of 
his doctrine as often as need requires. His words are plain, that a 
brother or sister are free from the law of marriage if the oher de- 
parts, or will not consent to live with the other.' Ibid. Fol. 112. 
2. It is fit (says he again) the husband should say, if tiiou wilt 
not, another will. If the mistress refuses let the maid come. But 
first he should a second and third time admonish his wife, and be- 
fore others make known her obstinacy ? that she may be publicly 
reprehended; if after that she refuses, divorce her and advance 
Esther in the place of Vasihi.' Ibid. Fol. 123. 1. Strange doctrine 
for a man called by God in an extraordinary mannner ! Nay, 
does it not manifestly shew him to have been a most wicked im- 
poster ? 

His doctrine concerning free will is no less contrary to the w r ord 
of God, for he utterly denies k. 6 Free will, (says he) after sin is 
no more than an empty name.' Tom. 2. Fol. 3. 2. And in his 
treatise de servo arbitro he writes thus : ' man V will is in the na- 
ture of a horse. If God sits upon it, it tends and goes as God 
would have it go— If the devil rides it, it tends and goes as the de- 
vil would have it ; nor can it choose which of the riders it will 
run t<>, or seek ; but the riders themselves strive who shall gain or 
possess it,' Tom. 2. Fol. 434. 2. And again in the same treatise, 
Fol. 480. % ' If God foresaw (say he) that Judas w r ould be a trai- 
tor, Judas of necessity became a traitor, neither was it in the power 
of Judas or of any other creature to do otherwise, or to change his 
will/ Thus wrote this great reformer, and he was followed in this 
impious doctrine by Calvin, who taught that grace necessitates the 
will, and that God is the author of all our sinful as well as virtuous 
actions ; to which he added several extravagant errors of his own, 
which I omit tor brevity's sake. 

Lastly, it is an unco.ntestible truth, that doing penance for our 
sins is a duty commanded by the word of God. " Bring therefore 
forth fruits worthy of penance;" Luke iii. 8. which all the fathers 
have understood for penitential works to punish our sins. And 
again, f except you do penance you shall all perish ;" Luke xiii. 5. 
It is likewise a truth taught us by the word of God, that the nar- 
row way is the only way to Heaven, " enter ye in at the 
strait gate, (says Christ,) because strait is the gate and narrow is 
the way, which leadeth unto life ;" Matt. vii. 13, 14. Which he 
confirms thus ; " If any man will come after me, let him deny him- 
self, and take up his cross daily and follow me;" Luke ix. 23 — 
But if we examine the doctrine and methods of our new gospellers, 
we shall find them all busy in enlarging the way to Heaven, 
instead of recommending the narrow one marked out in the 
gospel. 



NO EXTRAORDINARY MISSION. 



159 



The solemn fast of lent, of ember- days, and vigils, so venerable 
for their antiquity, were utterly abolished wherever Calvinism pre- 
vailed, and by degrees in all the reformed churches. Abstinence 
from flesh, on Fridays and Saturdays, was represented as a super- 
stitious distinction of meats condemned by St. Paul. Penance was 
struck out of the number of sacraments. Doing penetential works 
to satisfy for our sins, was declaimed against as injurious to the 
infinite satisfaction of Christ. The austerity of monastical disci- 
pline, religious vows, and the single life of priests, were run down 
as an insupportable yoke imposed by the tyranny of Popes, find in 
consequence of this commodious doctrine, monks and friars were 
permitted to throw off their frocks, virgins their veils, and priests 
to exchange their breviaries for more diverting company : in a 
word, ecclesiastical authority was rendered precarious, and every 
man constituted judge of his own practice as well as faith. 

Strange reformation ! Is it then possible, that .doctrines so fa- 
vourable to all the inclinations of corrupt nature, should be in- 
spired by the Holy Ghost? Or that the teachers of them were com- 
missioned by God to publish them in liis name ? I leave every one 
to form what judgment he may think n't upon the matter. How- 
ever let Protestants varnish things over as they please, they will 
find it a hard task to convince any man of common sense, that per- 
sons who were the authors of such scandalous relaxations in dis- 
cipline and morality, had either the Holy Ghost for their guide, or 
the word of God for their rule. The reason hereof is plain, be- 
cause the Spirit of God is unchangeable, and cannot lead different 
persons, whom he owns for lawful ministers under him, through 
ways directly opposite to one another, so as to impower some to 
preach one sort of gospel, and others another. Now I can scarce 
think any Protestant so unreasonable at present as to deny, that 
those great lights of the church in ancient times, viz. St. Cyprian, 
St. Athanasius, St, Basil, St. Gregory, of Nazianzen, St. Jerom, 
St. Epiphanius, St. Chryostom, and St. Austin, were all guided 
by the Spirit of God. But did any of these great men rail at 
religious vows, or the celibacy of priests ? Did they exhort monks 
and virgins to quit their solitary cells and return to the world ? 
Did they abolish the fast of Lent and other fasts still kept up in 
the church of Rome ? Or were they declared enemies to confessing 
our sins and doing penance for them ? Alas, we need but cast an 
eye upon their writings, or the ^history of their lives, to find that 
as they practised themselves all sorts of corporal austerities, so 
they constantly exhorted all the faithful under their conduct to do 
the same : they wrote whole volumes in praise of virginity, and 
persuaded as many as they could of both sexes to embrace that 
holy state : and yet it is certain, these great saints and pillars of 
the church were guided by the Spirit of God. And how then is it 
possible, that the same holy Spirit should in after times conduct 
men into a way as opposite to it as black is to white ? This argu- 



160 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



ment proves so convincingly, that the pretended reformation was 
not the work of God, that unless a man be resolved to bid defiance 
to the clearest truth, it is morally impossible not to yield to it. 

But what is still a farther confirmation, that the hand of God 
had no part in this work, and that the authors of it undertook it 
without any commission from him, is, that there is no example, 
since the coming of Christ, of persons truly called by God to la- 
bour in his vineyard for the coversion of souls, either from infidelity 
to the Christian faith, or from sinful lives to repentance, but the 
generality of their first disciples or followers were remarkable for 
such solid piety, and true Christian zeal, that God Almighty 
seemed to take a pleasure in pouring forth a plentiful benediction 
of grace not only on the labourers themselves, but likewise on 
their spiritual children, whom they had begot in Jesus Christ 
through the gospel ; and this Mas equivalent to an authentic de- 
claration, that they were the instruments of his mercies, and 
served under his authority. But we find the very reverse of all this 
in the first disciples or followers of Luther, Calvin, and other 
pretended reformers. 

Let us but compare their deluded proselytes with the true con- 
verts of the blessed apostles, and we shall see the truth of what I 
say in the clearest light. For whereas, nothing was more edifying 
than the lives of the *irst Christians converted by the apostles, no- 
thing on the contrary was more disedifying than the lives of the 
first pretended converts from the church of Rome, made by the 
apostles of the reformation. We find them indeed very zealously 
busy in railing at the Pope and his bishops, in running down re- 
ligious vows, breaking the images of Christ and his apostles, pul- 
ling down pictures, destroying abbie ? , plundering churches, and 
other such great exploits ; for all this sort of zeal either cost them 
nothing, or brought good itoney into their coffers ; but it ex- 
tended not to the demolishing of vice, or pulling down the idols of 
their sinful passions, such as luxury, avarice, intemperance, re- 
venge, &c, all which escaped their religious zeal, and were not 
only left unreformed, but had the reins let loose to a greater li- 
centiousnsss than ever was known before. 

I doubt not but if Protestants shall happen to read this piece, 
they will immediately accuse me of slander ; but let them have a 
little patience, and treat me as unmercifully as they please, if I do 
not produce witnesses above all exception to vouch for the truth of 
what I say, First then let us hear Erasmus, who was an eye- 
witness of what had happened, and writes thus in his letter against 
false gospellers. 

■ You declaim bitterly (says he) again st'the luxury of priests, the 
ambition of bishops, the tyranny of the Pope, the frothy stuff of 
sophists, the devotions of Catholics, their fasts and Masses ; and 
you are not content to retrench the abuses that may be in these 
things, but will needs abolish them entirely, that is, you will 



NO EXTRAORDINARY MISSION. 



1G1 



pluck up and destroy the good corn together with the tares. But 
what d > you offer us better in exchange to make us quit our ancient 
practices ? Consider the people who boast themselves to be of the 
evangelical profession, and observe whether there be not as much 
luxury, as much debauchery and avarice amongst them as amongst 
those they hate Shew me one, whom your new gospel has changed 
from a drunkard to a sober man ? Or one who having before been 
either quarrelsome, or revengeful, or covetous, or given to de- 
traction or impurity, is become meek, liberal, affable or chaste ? 
You will say there is always a mixture of good and bad in human 
tilings, and I ought to consider the good men that are amongst 
l^iose of the evangelical profession- I must therefore be very un- 
lucky ; for hitherto I have not met with one, that is not become 
worse than he was before he embraced the new gospel.' Thus 
Erasmus, who was no violent or prejudiced man, 

But let us hear Luther himself set forth the fruits of the reforma- 
tion : * we see (says he) that by the devil's malice men are at pre- 
sent more covetous, more cruel, more addicted to vice, more inso- 
lent, and far worse than they were under the Papacy.' Sermone in 
Dom. I. Adv„ Edit. Argent Fol. 5. and Robenstock in his book 
entitled Colloquia D. Lutheri, Tom. 1. p. 37« recites his words as 
follows ; * Men are become so extravagant by the gospel we have 
preached to them, that they think every thing lawful that flatters 
their passions, and have lost all fear of hell-fire. There is but one 
peasant in the district of Wittemberg, who endeavours to instruct 
iiis family according to the word of God; all the rest go straight 
to the devil.' 

Jacobus Andreas, in a sermon upon the 21st chapter of St. Luke, 
makes the same bitter complaint of the scandalous lives of their 
converts from Popery : 4 to make it plain (says he) to all the world 
that they are not Papists, and place no confidence in good works, 
they take care to practice none ; instead of fasting they spend their 
time in sotting and drinking ; when they ought to relieve the poor, 
they fleece and oppress them ; oaths, blasphemies and imprecations 
are their usual prayers ; so that Jesus Christ is not now so blas- 
phemed amongst the Turks as he is amongst them. In a word, 
instead of humility nothing reigns amongst them but haughtiness, 
arrogance, and pride, and this sort of life is called evangelical.' 

Andreas Musculus, in a sermon upon the 4th Sunday of Advent, 
describes the disorders reigning amongst those of his party in the 
same pathetical manner. 4 As to us Lutherans (says he) the matter 
stands thus : if any one has a mind to see a set of wicked men, 
drunkards, libertines, liars, cheats, and usurers, let him go to a 
town where the gospel is preached in its purity, and he will see as 
clearly as the sun may be seen at noon-day, that there is not so 
much insolence and wickedness practised amongst Turks and infi- 
dels, as amongst the evangelical people, where all the reins of the 
devil are let loose.' x 



162 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



Lastly, Calvin himself comes in for a witness of this truth: <of 
the few (says he) that have separated themselves from the tyrranny 
of the Pope, the greatest part are rotten at heart. They appear 
outwardly to be full of zeal, hut if you search them to the bottom, 
you will find them to be full of hypocrisy and deceit.' In Dan. C. 
1 1, v. 34. And amongst Calvin's letters there is one writ to Farel 
by Capiton, a minister of Strasbourg, where he says that G"d had 
rendered them sensible how much they had prejudiced souls by 
their precipitation in throwing of the Pope's authority. * The 
multitude (says he) has entirely shaken off the yoke, being trained 
up to Libertinism ; as if in pulling down the Pope s authority we 
intended to destroy the word of God the sacraments, and the whole 
ministry. They even have the impudence to tell us, I am suffi- 
ciently instructed in scriptures, I can read, and stand in no need 
of your direction.' 

Thus God confounded the enemies of the Catholic church, by 
turning against them the principal argument they had made use of 
to render her odious to the people, to wit, the scandals, abuses, and 
irregutadties committed by some corrupt members of that church* 
but always detested and opposed both by her public doctrine, and 
by all her sound and uncorrupted part, who made that doctrine the 
rule of their practice. Nay, the argument is retorted upon them 
with much greater force than it could ever be objected against the 
church of Rome ; because it is no wonder that corruption in man- 
ners, abuses in practice, and relaxations in discipline, should in the 
course of many ages get into the church, notwithstanding the holi- 
ness of her doctrine, and severity of innumerable canons made to 
prevent them. For we need not seek for any other source of this 
evil than the general corruption of human nature, always inclined 
to liberty and ease, and always tending to it whatever restraints are 
laid upon it. But I defy the blackest malice to a tribute u to any 
principle or branch of doctrine authorised or acknowledged by the 
church of Rome. Whereas the general inundation of libertinism 
and vice (as it is attested by the forementioned authors, who saw 
it with their own eyes) in the very infancy of the most solemn re- 
formation that ever was pretended to be made in God's church,, 
cannot possibly be ascribed to any other cause than the pernicious 
doctrines of the authors of it * for in reality ihose very doctrines 
paved the way directly to it. 

As for example, what other fruit than an utter contempt of reli- 
gion could be expected from a reformation, established upon the 
rains of broken vows, cemented by rapine, sacrilege, and plunder ? 
Was not the impious doctrine of making God the author of sin, 
denying the liberty of man's will, and teaching the impossibility of 
keeping the commandments, was it not I say, sapping the very 
foundation of all Christian morality,, and giving men a general li- 
cence to be as •wicked as they pleased ? For men cannot be ob- 
liged to impossibilities, and when they are once persuaded that 



NO EXTRAORDINARY MISSION. 



163 



$hey cannot be virtuous, what can we hope better than to see them 
most impudently wicked ? Again, abolishing the ancient holy-days 
and fasts, and reforming away the sacrament of Penance, could 
have no other effect than the introducing of Libertinism, and a ge- 
peral decay of piety and devotion. 

I shall end with some reflections upon Capiton's complaint of 
the people's insolence towards their minister ; for if he had not 
traced this evil to its true source, it might have opened his eyes to 
let him see, that the mischief he complains so bitterly of, was but 
the natural fruit of a tree of their own planting. The first refor- 
mers had set up the standard of rebellion against their mother 
iphurch, and behaved themselves with the utmost insolence towards 
their lawful superiors ; and could they after that have the weakness 
to imagine, the people would be more submissive and respectful to 
their upstart guides, tlmn they themselves ha<l been to the guides 
of God's own appointment, as Mr» Lesly justly styles them ? Nay 
they had not only set them the example, but taught them their les- 
son of rebellion against the church, by settling it as a fundamental 
principal of the reformation, that scriptures, interpreted by the 
private spirit, are the only rule of faith ; which in effect was ma- 
king every body a judge of the faith, and putting the people upon a 
level with their guides in spiritual matters. What wonder is it 
then they should pretend to controul them, or even claim a right to 
reform the reformers ? According to this celebrated saying of 
Tertullian, "what was lawful to Marcion, was likewise to the Mar- 
cionites."* For in like manner what was lawful to Luther, Calvin, 
Zuinglius, &c. was no less lawful to their disciples, or any other 
whatsoever, fco follow their private judgment in changing the 
faiths 

It was thus the reformation became at length a mere Proteus, 
and changed its shape as often as a stage-player changes his dress. 
Luther began the farce, and expected all should at best be but ac- 
tors under him, and dance to his pipe. But Carolostadius, Zuin- 
glius, and Calvin, took themselves to be as able reformers as Lu- 
ther, and so thought fit to reform his reformation ; nay, they all re- 
formed their own reformations backward or forward just as the 
fancy took them. The church of England reformed not only her 
own mother church, but all the reformations that had got the start 
of her, and a new scene of reformation appeared in Great Britain 
as often as new reformers mounted the stage. The reformation of 
Henry the 8th was reformed by Edward ttie 6th, and his by queen 
Elizabeth ; whose superior genius, not being fully satisfied with 
any tiling that had been done before her, by the force of her own 
ingenuity fabricated a new religion of a kind of linsey-vvolsey tex- 
ture, made up of several fragments of Lutheranism and Calvinism, 
and some pieces of Popery to make a shew with. For which reason 

* Idem licuit Volenti nianis quod Valentino, idem Mch •cionitis quod 
Marcionide arbitrio suo fidem innovate. Lib. de Fraescrip. C. 42. 



164 



NO EXTRAORDINARY VOCATION 



the Presbyterians thought themselves bound in conscience to re- 
form the reformation of queen Elizabeth ; the Fanatics and Inde- 
pendents after that reformed the Presbyterians, and the Browuists 
and Quakers have reformed them all. 

Here we see a complete Babel of jarring reformations, chopping 
and changing, building and destroying, doing and undoing, and all 
these changes, incoherencies, and contradictions flowing from a 
principle settled by the first reformers, and still maintained by the 
reformed churches, as is manifest from Mr, Lesly's case stated, p. 
46. where he has these remarkable words ; * private judgment is all 
we have for the belief of a God and of Christ. In short, we must 
trust to it in every thing without exception/ Nay the doctrine 
of private judgment, in opposition to church authority, is so essen- 
tially necessary to support the whole building of the reformation, 
that whoever gives it up must at the same time give up the ref« r- 
mation itself. Now I ask, whether a principle, which is an inex- 
haustible source of confusion, incoherencies, heresies, and schisms, 
can be a doctrine according to the word of God ? If it be, we 
must join issue with Calvin's blasphemy, in teaching that God is 
the author of sin. But I have now said enough to make it plain, 
that the two first marks of an extraordinary vocation, to wit, 
holiness of life, and purity of doctrine, were wholly wanting in the 
first reformers. Let us now see what is to be said concerning the 
third mark, viz. the gift of miracles. 



ARTICLE IV, 

No extraordinary Vocation without the gift of Miracles. 

If the first reformers had a commission immediately from God, 
to reform the public faith and discipline of the church, it follows 
that they w r ere vested with a power and jurisdiction not only of a 
larger extent than the ancient prophets ever had, but even fully 
equal to that of the apostles themselves. For, 

First, It made them the source of a new ecclesiastical ministry ; 
because the former, which Christ had established, remained no lon- 
ger in force, as they pretended. 

2dly, It gave them a power to establish articles of faith unknown 
for such to the whole world ; to revoke the decrees of ancient 
councils, declare such doctrines ortiiodox as had been condemned 
by the universal church in former ages ; pulled down the ancient 
form of church-government, and set up a new one in its place. 

3dly, It gave them a jurisdiction over the whole Christian world, 
and full authority to plant their new gospel wherever Christianity 
was professed ; because an extraordinary commission to reform 
the faith and discipline of the church regards one nation no less 
than another. 



WITHOUT. THE GIFT OF MIRACLES. 



165 



4thly, It gave them a power to suspend, depose, and excommu^ 
nicate the whole body ofbishops and pastors upon earth, if they refused 
to submit to their new gospel ; nay, if their commission was really 
from God, all bishops deposed and excommunicated by them, were 
bound to regard themselves as validly deposed and excommunicated, 
and have recourse to their authority to. be re-established in the exer^ 
cise of their functions, even though they should have afterwards, 
embraced the reformation. 

Lastly, If they really had a commission immediately from God A 
to reform both the faith and discipline of the church, as soon as 
they had manifested themselves to the world, and published their 
reformation, all Christians upon earth, that is, the whole Greek 
and Latin church, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Eutychians, 
&c. were bound to renounce their former pastors, and submit to the 
new ministry established by thenu 

This was the real extent of the extraordinary commission pre- 
tended to by the first reformers ; and it is manifest their preten- 
sion was at least as mad and extravagaut in appearance, as that in 
another kind would be of a man, wh> should issue forth; a procla-> 
tion that God had constituted h.im universal monarch of the world, 
with full power to depose all emperors, kings, and, princes that 
should refuse to own his title. Now what judgment would the. 
world make of a, man laying claim to such an universal, monarchy, 
as bestowed upon him immediately by God ? Would any thing less 
be demanded of him than clear and uncontested miracles to prove 
his title, since without that proof it could not be made manifest 
either to sense or reason ? And if he should refuse to yield to so 
reasonable a demand, would he not be treated either as a madman, 
or as a cheat and impostor ? It canot be questioned but he would 
and it follows from it, that unless the Srst reformers had the gift of 1 
miracles bestowed upon them, we must form the same judgment of 
them, because their claiming an immediate commission from God, 
to reform both the faith and discipline of the church, that is, to 
degrade all her former bishops and pastors, reverse the decrees of 
her ancient councils, abolish her most solemn devotions, and make 
themselves the source of a new ministry and succession, was at 
least in all appearance an extravagance equal to the imaginary one 
I have mentioned, and by consequence wholly unjustifiable with-- 
out the testimony of miracles to support it. 

The reason hereof is clear ; because, in the case of such an ex- 
traordinary pretension as that of an immediate mission from God, 
no man can expect to be believed without extraordinary proofs, 
much less upon his own bare word, ; by reason of the important 
consequences of it, which is either the salvation or damnation of 
millions of souls. For the pretenders to such a mission, are either 
seducers or not ; if they be, the people are bound to shun them ; 
if not, they are bound to glisten to their voice ; because there is 



166 



NO EXTRAORDINARY VOCATION * 



certainly an indispensible obligation, of obeying persone raised by 
God in an extraordinary manner ; for as he gives such persons an 
unquestionable authority to govern the people, so he lays by con- 
sequence an obligation on the people to submit to their govern^ 
ment, the one being wholly inseperable from the other. The 
people must therefore have some rational grounds to judge by, that 
the pretenders to such an authority are really vested with it ; be-? 
cause it is impossible they shonld comply with the duty of * obediT 
dience, without knowing the persons t ey are bound to obey. And 
how can this he l^nown in the case of an extraordinary vocation, 
which of itself is not manifest either to man's sense or reason, im* 
less the pretenders to it prove their immediate commission froni 
God, by shewing his seal to. it from the visible testimony of signs 
and wonders as the apostles did ? and even Christ himself, who 
declares in the gospel, that '* if he had not done among the Jews 
the works which no man ever did, they would not have sin John 
xv. 24, wh.'ch amounts to a positive declaration, that miracles are a, 
necessary proof of an extraordinary vocation. 

This was most certainly the judgment of the ancient Fathers, 
who objected the want of miracles as a conclusive argument against 
the teachers of new doctrines, J3as Novation (said St, Pacian), 
the gift of tongues or of prophecy ? Has he restored life to the 
dead ? For without some of these miraculous gifts he cannot claim, 
a right to establish a new gospel. For the same reason Tertullian, 
requiring of Hermogenes and Nigidius an account, of the authority 
they took, demanded at the same time miracles for a, proof of their 
mission. Volo <§r Virtudes eorum proferru because, says he, 
when Christ sent his apostles to preach, he gave them the power of 
working the same miracles himself had wrought : Zsib, de Prescript 
C. 30, And the same Tertullian observes, that no man coming as 
sent, or under the authority of another, ever pretended to be be- 
lieved upon his own bare word, nemo veniens ex alterius Authori^ 
ritate ipse earn, sibi ex sua ajfirmcitione defendit. 

Luther therefore may tell us, as often as he pleases, that he 
had his doctrine from, Heaven, and received his ministry not of 
men nor by men, but by the gift of God and revelation of Jesus 
Christ. Calvin may likewise tell us* if he pleases, that the com- 
mission our Saviour gave him and his fellow-reformers was wholly 
extraordinary, and not to bp. examined by common rules. Theo- 
dorus Beza may bluster and swagger against the ordinary mission, 
and their synods and confessions of faith may stand up for the ex- 
traordinary vocation of their first reformers ; but unless they shew 
miracles to prove it, no man in his senses will believe them. 

It will perhaps be asked, whether the gift o/ miracles be a sure 
mark of an extraordinary vocation, as well as a necessary proof of 
it ? I answer, it is not. Nay on the contrary, all the holy bishops 
and pastors, who, since the time of the apostles, have confirmed 
the truth of the faith they preachedby uncontested miracles, never 



WITHOUT THE GIFT OF MIRACLES. 



167 



had any other than what we call an ordinary mission ; that is, a 
mission received from the lawful successors of the apostles % so 
that there is not nn example since their time allowed of by the Ca- 
tholic church, of any one person sent immediately by God to 
preach the word, and administer the sacraments. For that must, 
of necessity, have made a breach in the apostolical succession of 
the sacred ministry, contrary to the doctrine of all antiquity, as 
well as to the promises of Christ, that it should be continued in 
the church to the end of the world. 

But do not we ourselves cry up many persons as raised by God 
in an extraordinary manner, such as St. Benedict, St. Bernard, 
and other founders of religious orders 9 I answer, that if the 
meaning of it be that God, by a superabundant effusion of his holy 
grace, has been pleased from time to time, to render these and 
many other such persons proper instruments of his mercies for the 
conversion of sinners, and to repair the gradual decays of Christian 
morality (which is a reformation the church continually prays and 
labours for) nothing is more certain than that God many times 
raises men in this manner, for the service and edification of his 
church. But did any of these persons separate themselves from 
the communion of their mother church ? Did any of them set up 
altar against altar, church against church, or rebel against their 
lawful superiors, under pretence of an extraordinary vocation to the 
ministry ? On the contrary, they did every thing according to the 
canons of the church, and their mission was conveyed to them by 
the ordinary channel, Nay, they were the very patterns of humi- 
lity, submission, and obedience to superior powers, and never made 
a step but as directed by them ; much less had they the presump- 
tion to think themselves wiser than the Catholic church, or assume 
an authority to reform her faith, which according to Tertullian is 
wholly irreformable. Regulafidei una omnino est ; sola immobilis 
8$ irreformabilis ; C. 1. de Virgin, Velandis. Because Christ has 
promised to his Church " the Spirit of Truth for her guide her 
Johnxwi. 13. and "to abide with her to the end of the world 
Matt, xxviii. 20. So that the reformation these holy men under- 
took regarded wholly the correction of manners. It was not their 
business to preach a new faith, but to exhort the people to live up 
to the sacred maxims of the faith they had received from their fore- 
father : and there is not a Christian in the world but is bound to 
contribute to this sort of reformation, if not by preaching, at least 
by practice and example, So that if Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, 
and archbishop Cranmer, had laboured for a reformation of this 
kind, and proceeded in it according to rule and order, the whole 
world would have admired their zeal ; nor would any of them have 
stood in need of an extraordinary mission, but only of a greater 
stock of humility, mortification, obedience, and other virtues to 
qualify them for it ; and God, who, who can work miracles by 
what instruments he pleases, might perhaps have bestowed that 



158 



NO EXTRAORDINARY VOCATION 



blessing on them, as he has done on m »ny others, labouring in his 
holy vine-yard, Whereas these proud pretenders to an extraordi- 
nary vocation, were so far from being endowed with the gift of 
miracles, that Erasmus was wont to reproach them, that not one 
amongst them could ever so much as cure a 1 mie horse ; much less 
give sight to the blind, health to the sick, or life to the dead. 

But was not the sudden and stupendous progress of the reforma- 
tion a kind of miracle, and sure markof t»e divine approbation of 
it ? I answer, first, in Mr. Dryden's pithy expression, that " a 
downhill reformation rolls on very fast," I answer, secondly, that 
success is the most equivocal mark that possibly can be of the divine 
approbation of any undertaking ; for if it were a solid proof it, eve- 
ry successful and prosperous wickedness would have the divine ap- 
probation to justify it. The famous rebellion in forty-two was 
prosperous in all its undertakings ; yet I hope no g *od subject will 
say that God approved of it. The progress of Mahometanism is 
without example and will any Christian say it is a religion approv- 
ed by God? Again, the progress of Arianism w r as so pivdigious, 
tiiat there were sometimes assemblies of above three hundred Arian 
bishops at once; it was supported by Christian emperors and kings; 
the most zealous champions of the Catholic faith were eithei mur- 
dered, or imprisoned, or sent into banishment. In a word, the 

Christian world was astonished at the general inundation of it 

And yet I never heard any Christian call this a miraculous event, 
or insist upon it as a mark of God's approbation of it. 

Yet there is a peculiar circumstence, which renders this progress 
of Arianism still more astonishing, to wit, that it was a mere specu- 
lative heresy, and no ways flattering men's passions or proneness 
to libertinism ; for it neither dispensed with fasting, nor religious 
vows, nor confession of sins, nor doing penance for them, but kept 
up all the rigour of ecclesiastical discipline : whereas the reforma- 
tion had the most powerful attractives to draw into its interest all 
persons of a worldly, sensual, and carnal disposition, of which there 
are always great numbers in the church. Princes and other men 
of figure were charmed with the alluring prospect of enriching 
themselves with the plunder of the church's patrimony. Priests, 
friars, monks, and nuns, were prevailed upon by the temptation of 
exchanging their confinement, austerities, and breviaries, for the 
worldly pleasures of liberty and ease, and the more agreeable com- 
pany of wives and husbands ; and the common people could not but 
be very well content to be rid of so many troublesome fasts, and 
the importunate exhortations and reprimands of their confessors. — 
So that the great and sudden progress of a reformation, so agreea- 
ble to all the inclinations of corrupt nature, and wherein all sorts 
of passions found their account, is so far from having the appear- 
ance of a miracle, that we may rather call it a miracle of God's 
grace that it stopped where it did, and look upon the preservation 
of his church, from such a powerful and dangerous contagion, as a 



WITHOUT THE GIFT OF MIRACLES. 1C9 

most remarkable instance of the indefeasibleness of his promise, 
that " the gates of bell shall never prevail against her." 

I conclude from what has been said, that Luther and Calvin, the 
two principal reformers, were two rank cheats and imposters ; be- 
cause whoever sets up for an inspired man, and pretends to an ex- 
traordinary commission from Gcd to reform his church, deserves 
no better name, if he cannot make good his title, and is even con- 
victed of falsehoods 

Those of the church of England will say, what have we to do with 
Luther and Calvin ? For we are neither Lutherans, nor Calvin ists, 
but have a reformed church of our own, which by its worthy mem- 
bers is justly called the best church in the world. I confess I have 
often been surprised at this expression^ because the Nicene Creed 
allowed of by that church tells us, that there is but One, Holy, 
tlatholic, and Apostolic church. St. Paul says likewise, that there 
is but one faith ; and to be sure the creed speaks of the true church, 
and St. Paul of the true faith, and by consequence but one true re- 
ligion. This bring so, I cannot well conceive how either the 
church of England, or any other, should be the best church in the 
world ; for that implies a comparison, and supposes that there are 
several very good churches, faiths, and. religions in the world, but 
like trades, houses, or families, some belter than others. A strange 
absurdity ! contrary to scripture, and unknown to all antiquity, 
whic i never admitted but of one church and communion of all the 
faithful throughout the whole world, united in the profession of one 
and the same true faith. 

But let that be as it will, if the church of England be the best 
church in the world, one necessary condition to .make her so is to 
profess the best faith in the world. Now then I desire some worthy 
member of this church to answer me this short question, to wit ? ! 
whether Luther and Calvin were cheats or not ? If he denies it, 
he must give himself the trouble to confute both this and the two 
preceding articles, which, I conceive will be a hard task to perform ; 
because in the second article he will find it fully proved, both from 
her own words and other authentic testimonies, that they effectually 
set up for inspired men, and challenged to themselves an immedi- 
ate commission from God. And he will h'nd it in this and the pre- 
ceding article, that they were wholly destitute of all the marks of 
such a mission ; demonstrated nay, over and above, that some of 
their doctrines were so exhorbitantly scandalous, that it would 
be blasphemy to attribute them to any other than the father of 
lies. 

But if the advocates for the church of England be convinced, by 
the force of these arguments, (as I hope every reasonable man will 
be) that Luther and Calvin were rank imposters, then they do not 
act rationally, unless they have an entire diffidence of all the 
changes they made hoth in the public faith and discipline of the 
church, and suspect the new doctrines they broached to have been 

Y 



170 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



the fruit, not of a sincere conviction of judgment, but either of their 
violent hatred to the Pope and their mother church, or of some 
other criminal passion ; for it is certain there is no sort of wicked- 
ness, which an avowed impostor is not capable of. But ought not 
those then of the church of England, at the same time, to suspect 
the truth of all the doctrines they have espoused after the examples 
of such notorious seducers ? Would they think it s; fe to drink the 
waters of a poisoned source, or eat a fruit growing from a poisonous 
root? No, surely. They ought therefore to have at least a diffi- 
dence of, and suspect all the doctrines, wherein they differ from the 
church of Rome, because they all flowed from a poisonous source. 
Two rank imposters were the primary authors of them, in opposition 
to the w hole visible ehurch then upon earth, and this alone is suffi- 
cient for any rational man to reject them. Neither will it any 
ways avail the advocates of the church of England to say, tney are 
neither Lutherans nor Calvinists ; for it is not the name, but doc- 
trine, that makes men disciples of this or that sect ; and they will 
in spite of their hearts be the true disciples of two notorious sedu- 
cers, as long as they sympathize with them in all the doctrines 
wherein they differ from their mother church, though they follow 
them not in those that are grossly scandalous* I shall now pro- 
ceed to prove, that the first reformers had not even an ordinary 
mission. 



ARTICLE V. 

The first reformers had no ordinary Mission. 

It appears manifestly from what has been said, and even from 
plain fact, that the first reformers took upon them to change the 
whole face of religion, both as to faith, government and discipline. 
The Pope was stript of all his authority, both as patriarch of the 
West, and head of the Catholic church. The real presence of the 
sacred body and blood of Christ in the blessed sacrament, believed, 
by the whole Caristian world both East and West, was transformed 
into a mere figurative presence. The holy sacrifice of the Mass, 
offered from East to West, according to the prophecy of Malachy, 
was rendered execrable and odious, as much as in them lay. The 
invocation of saints, and the relative honour paid to their pictures, 
images, and relics, though practised by all the most eminent lights 
and saints of antiqui:y, was run down for rank idolatry. The sa- 
craments instituted by Christ were reduced from seven to two. — 
The solemn ceremonies of baptism, more ancient than the first Ni- 
cene Council, were abolished. The rule of faith, which till then 
was the word of God delivered to us, either in the canonical books, 
or by apostolical tradition; was changed into that of scriptures in- 



NO ORDINARY MISSION. 



171 



terpreted by the private spirit. In a word, the solemn fasts of 
Lent, Ember days, and Vigils, religious vows, confession, and doing 
penance for our sins, were utterly reformed away. 

I confess when I barely consider the extraordinary nature of 
euch an undertaking, and the prodigious extent, and consequences 
of it, 1 cannot wonder the first reformers should form a judgment, 
lhat nothing but an extraordinary commission from God could jus- 
tify it in any maimer, how extravagant soever their pretensions to 
it was. For what power upon earth -could give a commission to any 
get of men, to subvert in this manner a religion, which had at that 
time the prescription of nearly fifteen hundrrd years, as shall be 
proved hereafter ? The thing is wholly inconceivable in itself, 
unless we can imagine, with any colour of reason, that the whole 
church of Christ had been utterly blind, void of all piety and zeal, 
and under a continual dotage for so many ages together ; and was 
cured all on a sudden of this blindness, lethargy, and dotage, by 
the voice of these powerful charmers, so as to give them a Carte 
Blanche to act just as they pleased. 

It is certain, however, that both Luther, Calvin, Theodorus 
Beza, and others were of opinion, that nothing less than an extra- 
ordinary vocation could serve their turn ; and this shews manifest- 
ly, that they knew nothing of the ordinary one, which their ingenius 
successors have since invented for them, which I think is a good 
pr»»of that they had no ordinary mission ; because it was but con- 
gruous to common sense to judge, that if they had had it, they 
would have known it, and accordingly insisted upon it. 

Let us then examine the reasons why they judged themselves 
safest under the shelter of an extraordinary mission. The first 
was, because they had separated themselves from the communion 
of the whole Christian world, so that there was not a visible society 
of Christians upon earth into which they could incorporate them- 
selves, as will appear more fully hereafter. From what source then, 
or through what channel could the ordinrry mission be conveyed 
to them I Can waters have their ordinary course when the pipes 
and conduits, through which they used to pass, are stopped or bro- 
ken ? In reality they might as well have looked for an ordinary 
mission from the world in the moon, as from any Christian society 
upon earth. 

Another strong reason against the ordinary mission of the first 
reformers, which they could not but be sensible of, was, because it 
appears manifestly from the practice of all antiquity, that there ne- 
ver was any ordinary mission acknowledged by God's church, but 
was derived by an uninterrupted succession from the apostles, and 
conveyed down from age to age, and from person to person by the 
bishops, who were their undoubted successors. And this truth is 
supported by such a constant and universal tradition (as has been 
shewn in the first article) that no man of any sincerity can doubt 
but it has its source from the apostles themselves. Now all the 



172 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



bishops, at least of the western churches, were true sons of the Ro- 
man Catholic church and zealous defenders of her faith, when Lu- 
ther, Calvin, Zuinglius, &c. first set up for reformers. And can it 
enter into the imaginations of any man of common sense, thai ever 
any of these bishops would, or that the fore-mentioned reformers 
thought they would, give them a commission not only to subvert 
the whole frame of ecclesiastical government established by that 
church, but even to set up new churches, faiths, and religions, in 
opposition to her ? Truly, it may as easily be believed, that a 
king shall give a commission to a band of ruffians to come and 
cut his throat. 

Here then I shall ask them in Tertuilian's words, qui estis vos ? 
quando § uncle venistis f Who were- these reformers ? Whence 
did they come ? Who gave them a commission to pull down their 
mother church, and turn her faith and discipline out of doors 
Were they the people or secular princes, who gave them this au- 
thority ? Alas! how can the laiiy, who have no ecclesiastical pow- 
er or jurisdiction themselves, give it to. others ? Nay, they may as 
well pretend to give them the power to fly, or to give health to the 
sick, sight to the blind, and life to the dead. Or did they receive 
it from the Greek church, or from any of the other churches of the 
"East ? All these were utter strangers to them in the beginning of 
the reformation, and since they have been informed of their pro- 
ceedings, have disowned them as a spurious race, and openly decla- 
red against their doctrines ; as is demonstrated from in contest] hie 
records in Mr. Arnauld's Frepetuite de la Fox to the everlasting 
confusion of the French Hugonot ministers, who were so indiscreet 
as to provoke him to it. 

Lastly, will they pretend to have received their power and juris- 
diction from the church of Rome ? If so, I must repeat in short 
what I said just new, viz. that no man in his senses will believe the 
church of Rome ever gave a commission to any man to destroy her- 
self; so that the consequence of all is, that they had their commis- 
sion from their own dear selves ; as thieves and robbers have, who 
plunder and murder upon the high way, according to our Saviour's 
character of false guides, John x. 10. 

But I must here observe over and above, that the advocates fcr the 
ordinary Protestant mission from the church of Rome, do hereby fair- 
ly acknowledge her authority to give a lawful mission : the imme- 
diate consequence whereof is, that they must likewise acknowledge 
her to have bzen the true church of Christ at the very time when 
they formed their schism against her ; because a false church can- 
not give a lawful mission to preaee the word and administer the 
sacraments ; and so by another undeniable consequence, they 
apostatized from the true church of Christ, acknowledged for such 
by themselves. 

It follows again, that as they are bound to acknowledge her au- 
thority to give a lawful mission, so they must likewise own she had 



NO ORDINARY MISSION. 



173 



a power to suspend, interdict, and excommunicate such members as 
set up the standard of rebellion against her ; for the one is wholly 
inseparable from the other. But this spoils all, and utterly destroys 
the pretended ordinary mission of the first reformed churches from 
i lie church of Home ; because Die first authors of the reformation 
were effectually excommunicated by hef, and persons excommunica- 
ted have neither themselves tho power of exercising their ministry, 
nor by consequence of conveying it to others. For no man can 
give that power to others, which he has not himself. 

T-idh will fully answer the question chiefly insisted upon by 
those, who justly stand up for the divine institution of episcopacy, 
viz. whether those amongst the reformers, who had been validly 
ordained by the church of Rome, had not a power by virtue of their 
ordination to preach the word and administer the sacraments ? For 
I answer iirst, that excommunication deprived them of all power of 
exercising their, respective functions. I answer 2d!y, that their 
power of preaehmg the word could go no farther than as it had a 
conformity to the doctrine of the church that gave them their orders ; 
for I take it to be a certain truths that they had no power given 
them to cut the throat of their own church ; as Dr. Whist* *n and 
others ordained by the church of England, had no power, by virtue 
of their ordination, to teach doctrines condemned by that church ; 
and as me Arian and Dpnatist bishops, who had been validly or- 
dained by the Catholic church, had no power, by virtue of their or- 
dination, to preach their impious doctrines ; nay, we may as well 
maintain that the commander of a party, who has a commission to 
attack the enemy wherever he meets them, has a power given 
him to burn, pillage, and destroy both friends and foes, which is 
most highly ridiculous ; because exceeding a commission is as un- 
warrantable as acting contrary to it» 

But has not every pastor a power, nay obligation, to reform errors 
and abuses crept into the church? I answer, that if we may depend 
securely upon the promises of Christ, the Catholic church will ne- 
ver be guilty of any errors against the. faith, and therefore will ne- 
ver stand in need of being reformed by any of her pastors. So 
that my direct answer, to the question is, that it implies.no less a 
false supposition, than if it should be asked, whether every pastor 
has not a power, nay obligation, to reform errors taught by the 
apostles ? - 

But as to abuses in practice, every pastor is bound to do his best 
to reform them, provided they be real ones ; but he ought to be ve- 
ry well assured that they are so, before he undertakes to correct 
them. For if every private pastor had an authority to reform mere- 
ly supposed or imaginary abuses, endless divisions and schisms 
would be the unavoidable consequences of it. In effect this was 
the sole occasion of the ancient schisms of the Donatists and Nova- 
tians, and that of the Anabaptists in our latter days. The Dona- 
tists pretended, that the allowing of the validify of baptism confer- 



174 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



red by heretics was an abuse. The Noyatians cried out against 
the pretended abuse of admitting those to penance who had fallen 
in the persecutions ; and the Anabaptists clamour with the same 
violence against infant baptism as au abuse against the plain word 
of God. But because the Catholic church never regarded these 
practices as abuses, but on the contrary as a discipline supported 
by apostolical tradition, it was unlawful for any of her pastors to 
take upon them the power to reform them of their own heads. 

Suppose a bishop or parson of the church of England should, of 
his own head, undertake to abolish the sign of the cross in theadmi- 
nistration of baptism, the ceremonies of ordination, of blessing 
churches, and other such practices still retained in their church, 
under pretence of reforming abuses as smelling too rank of Popery, 
J ask whether that plea would be admitted ? I rather believe such 
a pretended reformer would be very warmly opposed by his fellow 
bishops or parsons, who in this case would, be clearsighted enough 
to perceive a difference between real and imaginary abuses : and I 
heartily wish it may opeu their eyes to let them see, that the fiery 
zeal of the first reformers against every thing they were pleased to 
call abuses (as monastical vows, the celibacy of priests, the invoca^ 
tian of saints, honouring their relics, images, or pictures, and pray- 
ing for the souls departed) was not a zeal, according to knowledge, 
but a cloak to cover the irregularity of their unwarrantable and 
uncanonical proceedings. 

But I shall now proceed to another sort of argument to prove t 
that the first reformers, whether ordained, or not ordained by the 
church of Rome, could not possibly have a lawful mission from her % 
aud this I shall prove from their own writings ; as likewise fr>nx 
the writings of the tnie sons of the episcopal church of England, 
who have ihereby given a mortal stab to their own church. 



ARTICLE VI. 

Protestants convicted from their own writings, that they have na 
lawful mission from the ehureh of Rome. 

The principle I go upon is this, viz. that an heretical, idolatrous, 
and antichristian church, has no power or authority to preach the. 
word or administer the sacraments.; because this power belongs 
wholly and solely to the. true church of Christ ; and an heretical, 
idolatrous, and antichristian church, cannot be the true church of 
Christ. If then it will appear that the church of Rome has been 
constantly represented as an heretical, idolatrous, and antichristian 
church, both by the first reformers and their successors, it will plain- 
ly follow from their own doctrine and writings, that none of the re- 
formed churches can possibly have a lawful mission from her, be- 



NO ORDINARY MISSION. 



cause she has no lawful ministry herself, if she be the monster des- 
cribed in those noble epithets. 

First then let us see how the church of Rome was set forth by 
the first reformers. Luther declares indeed, in his book de aJrro- 
ganda Missa, that he had at first no small difficulty to work him- 
self into a belief that the Pope was Antichrist, his bishops the de- 
vil's apostles, and the Catholic universities his stews ; but with the 
help of some powerful medicines, as he speaks himself, this hard 
morsel went d<>wn at last : And after that the Pope was the very 
Antichrist foretold in the revelations, the church of Rome was the 
scarlet whore, her synod's the synagogues of Satan, and her bishops 
the devil s apostles. Nay, in a book he wrote against the Pope's 
bull, instead of calling him Pope or bishop of Rome, he styles 
him Antichrist in the very title prefixed to it thus, against the 
execrable butt of Antichrist ; which shews that amongst the Lu- 
therans he was very well known by that name. 

Calvin explained in express terms, that the bishops of Rome 
were not true pastors, but the most cruel butchers of souls, 
Instit. X. 4. C 10. and in the same treatise, L. 4. C. 2 §. 2. he 
tells his reader that 'in the church of Rome, instead of the Lord's 
Supper a horrible sacrilege is substituted in its place : that (be 
worship of God is entirely disfigured by a heap of superstitions ; 
that the essential doctrine of Christianity, without which it can- 
not subsist, is either buried or utterly destroyed ; that her public 
assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety * r and that no man 
ought to be afraid of separating himself from the church, by 
avoiding to be an oecompliee in her crimes.' In his letter to the 
king of Poland fie declares positively, that her ministry was in- 
terrupted ; and in bis method of reforming the church, that * she 
was fallen into « utter ruin.* 

Thcodorus Beza, his faithful disciple, told the Cardinal of Lo- 
rain, that they had renounced the Papistical ordinations as the 
mark of the beast ; as he likewise told Saravias that * they were 
no better than an infamous commerce with the Romish harlot, 
and more polluted than the pay of prostitutes forbid by God to 
be offered in the temple. 

The 31st article ot their profession of faith declares, that ' the 
church was fallen into utter ruins and desolattou.' And the 28th 
ar ticle condemns all Popish assemblies, ' because the pure word 
of God was banished out of them, and the holy sacraments were 
corrupted, bastardized, satisfied, or rather entirely annihilated. — 
That all idolatry aud superstition was practised in them, and that 
w hoever followed their practices, or communicated w ith them, cut 
himself off from the mystical body ot Jesus Christ.' 

From these principles they argued very consequently, and in- 
ferred that they could not possibly receive a lawful mission froai 
the church of Rome ; but that the safest course they could take 
was to insist upon an immediate and extraordinary vocation from 



176 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



Go??. And truly if the premises were true, the consequence 
vi on i<l he undeniable,, 

But have those of the episcopal church of England been more 
moderate in their writings? I leave the reader to judge whether 
they have or not. 

Perkins, in his Eposition of the Creed, p. 400, -writes thus, 
' We say that before the days of Luther, fur the space of many 
hundred years, an universal apostacy, overspread the whole face of 
the earth.' 

The Book of Homilies, ordered by the 35 th article of religion to 
be read in churches, as captaining a godly and wholesome doc- 
trine, in the Homily against the peril of idolatry, part 3, London, 
1687, p- 251, has these remarkable words: ' Laity and clergy, 
learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, wo- 
men, and children of whole Christendom, have been at once drown- 
ed in abominable idolatry, and that for the space of eight hundred 
years and more,' 

Mr. Napier (of whom more hereafter) in his book upon the Re- 
velations, Prop. 37, p- 68, writes thus ; * From the year of Christ, 
316, the antichristian and Papistical reign has begun,' &c. 

Dr. Beard, in his book entitled Antichrist the Pope of Peine, 
tells his reader, 'that the Pope has set up a new God, namely, a 

piece of bread in the Mass 4 that he exalts himself above 

all that is God, mrv, above God himself.' 

Mr. SutclifF, in. his survey of Popery, writes, * that Popery as a 
sink has, together with heresies, received into itself most gross 

and heathenish idolatry that it is nothing else but a pack of old 

and new heresies that the Romish church consists of a pack of 

infidels that the Pope is antichrist that the Popish 

church has no true bishops or priests and finally, that Popery, 

in many points, is more abominable than the doctrine of Ma- 
homet.' 

Stillingfleet, a doctor and bishop of the church of England, has 
written a large volume to prove Roman Catholics idolators ; and 
• Mr. Lesly, in his Case stated, following Stiilingfleet's system, has 
employed about thirty pages to prove us as rank idolators as hea- 
thens ever were. 

Lastly, ± a scurrilous libel, entitled, a Protestanfs Resolution, 
shelving his Peasons why he will not be a Papist, written by way 
of questions and answers, in the form of a Catechism, reprinted 
several times a few years ago, and industriously dispersed through- 
out the kingdom, has the following question and answer, p. 10. 

Q. What w r as there in the Romish religion, that occasioned 
Protestants to seperate themselves from it ? 

A. in that it was a superstitious, idolatrous, damnable, bloody, 
traitorous, blind, blasphemous religion. 

This indeed is outrageous in the highest degree, and more be- 
coming the brutality of a savage, than one that sets up for a guide 



NO ORDINARY MISSION. 



117 



and teacher of Christians. I omit innumerable others to save my- 
self the trouble of transcribing volumes, and appeal to the gene- 
rality of Protestant laity, whether the idea of Popery, being a re- 
ligion full of gross errors, superstitions, and idolatry, has not been 
familiar to them from their very childhood: and since such notions 
are not born with us, they must have been instilled into them by 
their teachers ? I pray God to convert their hearts, and forgive 
them the guilt of so grievous a sin. 

It is however plain and undeniable, that the generality of Pro- 
testants have, in a manner, conspired together, to give this foul 
character of the church of Rome ; and so they stand convicted by 
their own doctrine and writings, that they cannot, without the 
greatest incoherency and even absurdity, pretend to derive a law- 
ful ministry from that church, for the reason I have already often 
repeated, viz. because an heretical or idolatrous church has herself 
no lawful ministry, and therefore cannot communicate it to others. 
Nay, though a person had a lawful mission before, he would forfeit 
it by communicating with such a church ; because whoever com- 
municates in sacraments or worship with heretics, schismatics, or 
idolr^ ors, becomes guilty of their heresy, schism, or idolatry, and is 
thereby rendered incapable of exercising his functions lawfully. — 
And this alone is a convincing proof, that neither Luther, nor Cal- 
vin, nor Zuinglius, Caralostadius, nor bishop Cranmer, nor any of 
the first reformers could possibly have a lawful ordinary mission, 
according to their own doctrine, wherein they have represented the 
chinch of Rome as an heretical and idolatrous church ; because 
they had all communicated with her for many years in all her sacra- 
ments and worship. 

Now then I leave Protestants to consider seriously, from whence 
they have their ministry or mission ? By their blind zeal against 
Popery, and violent hatred to the church of Rome, they have effec- 
tually stopped up that channel against themselves, through which 
alone it has passed for fifteen hundred years before the reformation ; 
and when they separated themselves from that church, as they ne- 
ver incorporated themselves into any other society of Christians, 
so have they been from the very beginning, and continues still to 
be a separate body and communion from all other Christian 
churches, as well as from the church of Rome ; and so they could 
not have received their mission from any of these. Neither could 
they have received it from (he people or secular magistrates, be- 
cause they have no ecclesiastical power or jurisdiction themselves. 
How then do they come by it? It certainly behoves them to give 
a satisfactory answer to this question ; because the salvation or 
damnation of millions of souls depends upon it. 

Some will perhaps say, that though the church of Rome be 
painted in very black colours by a great number of Protestant 
teachers, yet the more moderate part pretended not that she has 
i lost the faith, but only obscured it : that the foundation remains 

z 



178 



THE FIRST REFORMERS HAD 



g »od, but she has built a great deal of stubble and straw upon it ; 
that therefore she has always had a lawful ministry, and by conse- 
quence a power to communicate it to others. But these are all 
empty words, and serve for nothing else but to throw a mist before 
the people's eyes. I shall therefore propose two dilemmas to clear 
the wlule matter. 

First, either the church of Rome is a superstitious and idolatrous 
church, or not. If she be, she has no lawful ministry, nor by con- 
sequence a power to communicate it to others ? If not, what opi- 
nion must all rational men have, not only of the first reformers, 
but of the generality of Protestant teachers ? Must they not regard 
them as men void of honour and conscience, as seducers, impostors, 
and the foulest calumniators, that ever were upon the face of tt e 
earth ? Nay must they not think their leaders, who still promote 
er countenance this unchristian calumny, to be utterly destitute of 
all hopes of salvation, unless they make some public reparation of 
honour to their church, which both they and their forefathers have 
slandered in such a notorious manner ? I think the matter is be- 
yond all question, according to this received maxim of Christian 
morality, that the sin of injustice is incapable of pardon, if restitu- 
tion be not made. 

Again, either the church of Rome is an heretical church, or 
not? If she be, it follows again, that she nas no lawful ministry, 
Bor a power to transmit it to others ? If not, there follows a train 
< f the most destructive consequences to all the reformed churches ? 
For if she be n >t an heretical church, then her whole faith, is ortho- 
dox ? and it follows that the Pope's supremacy, church's infallibi- 
lity, trairsubstaiitiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, the lawfulness of 
communion in one kind, of invoking the saints and honouring 
their relics, images, and pictures, and many m^re articles denied 
by the reformed churches, are all articles of revealed faith, because 
they are all proposed as such by the church of Home, and if any of 
them were not revealed truths, she would be manifestly guilty of 
heresy ? because to add to the revealed word of God is as much 
heresy as to detract from it ; that is to say in plainer terms, what- 
ever church declares that to be an article of revealed faith, which 
really is not so, is no less an heretieal church, than that which 
denies articles of faith revealed by God. 

Well then, supposing the church of Rome not to be an heretical 
church, it follows, 1. That she is the true church of Christ. 2. 
That all the reformed churches have separated themselves from the 
true church of Christ. 3. That in so doing they are all schisma- 
tical churches. 4. That they are likewise heretical churches, in 
denying the forementioned articles proposed by her as revealed 
truths. And o. That being heretical churches they are incapable 
of having any lawful ministry; because no man, or society of men, 
ever had a lawful power to preach heresy. This I call a train of con- 
sequences destructive to all the reformed churches, if the church of 



NO ORDINARY MISSION. 



179 



Rome be not a heretical church ; and if she be one, they can have 
no lawful mission from her ; and so they are hemmed in betwixt the 
two horns of this dilemma, one of which must give then a mortal 
wound, let them turn themselves what way they please. 

But it may perhaps be asked, whether if the whole church of 
Christ should fall into heresy or idolatry, there would be no possi- 
bility, in that caee, of a lawful ministry or ordinary mission ? I an- 
swer first, that the case is impossible; because Christ has posi- 
tively promised his church, " that the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against her ;" Matt. xvi. 18. And, "that he will be with her unto 
the end of the world Matt, xxviii. 20. 

I answer 2dly, that if it were possible for the whole church to 
apostatize, the ecclesiastical ministry or mission, as established 
upon the footing it now is, would cease of course in that case, and 
an extraordinary vocation would then be absolutely requisite to 
authorize persons to establish a new ministry, in case it should 
please God to form a new church : which was the very principle 
the first reformers weut upon, when they claimed an extraordinary 
vocation ; and they argued very justly, as I observed before, if it 
had been true what they pretended, that the whole church was 
fallen into heresy and idolatry. 

There romains now but one popular argument to be answered, 
viz. that it was not the business of the reformation to preach a new 
faith, or set up a new church, but only to bring the Christian re- 
ligion back to its ancient'purity, which surely any minister ofthegos- 
pel may lawfully do. Thousands of the laity, who know nothing of 
ecclesiastial history, and swallow down, without examination, 
whatever their guides teach them, have been and are still seduced 
by the plausible appearanee of this argument. For nothing is more 
certain than that the most ancient Christian religion is that which 
was taught by Christ and his apostles, and the religion they taught 
is most certainly the only trne one. When therefore the people 
are confidently told by their ministers, that Protestancy is the an- 
cient religion, and believe it upon their word, there they stick fully 
satisfied, without enquiring any farther, whether it be really so or 
not ? whether their ministers can prove it as easily as say it ? or 
whether their averring it be a safe bottom to hazard their souls 
upon ? Whereas if they made these inquiries with sincerity in a 
concern of this importance, they would soon discover their state to 
be the same, as that of persons under the delusion of a pleasing 
dream. And indeed as long as they continue under this delusive 
dream, of having antiquity and the primitive ages on their side, all 
endeavours to convince them of this or that particular truth, is but 
labour lost, like speeches made to persons in a profound sleep. 

For which reason I refer the reader to the book, entitled the "Shortest 
Way to end Disputes about Religion," first part, chapter fourth and fifth, 
where it is made plain, that the doctrine, commonly known by the odious 
name of Popery, was the doctrine of the Catholic church in the primitive 
a^es. and by consequence of the apostles themselves. 



( 180 ) 



THE SUPPLEMENT OF ARTICLE III. p. 156. 

Whoever reals the bad character I have given of archbishop 
Cranmer, Art, 3. p. 156. and compares it with the high eulogiums 
given of hiin by Dr. Burnet, in his History of the English Refor- 
mation (particularly part 1. Z. 2. p. 127, 128. where he sets forth 
his candour, disinterestedness, humility and repugnance to accept 
of the archbishopric of Canterbury, and part 2. L. 2. p. 335. where 
lie represents him as a most holy saint and martyr) whoever, I say, 
compares my character of him with the eulogiums heaped upon 
him in that history, must of necessity judge, that either Dr. Burnet 
is a mere romancer, or that I am afoul calumniator in having blast- 
ed the memory of such a worthy prelate. It behoves me therefore 
to write something in vindication of what I have said of him, being 
convinced in conscience, that I have advanced nothing but the na- 
ked truth : and it is no small advantage to me, that the doctor him- 
self has furnished me with arms to defend myself with. . For though 
he never had the fame of a man of the nicest truth in his generati n, 
even among those of his own party, I may lawfully take all the ad- 
vantage I can of his testimony, when it makes against himself, and 
favours my cause. 

Now I find, that amidst the many panegyrics bestowed upon the 
doctor's holy saint and martyr, he has unwarily let slip from his 
pea certain facts relating to that prelate, which I think will utterly 
spoil his canonization ; nay, I find him clearly convicted from them 
of four enormous crimes, viz. first, of incontinence ; 2dly, of high 
treason ; 3dly, of hypocrisy and dissimulation in religion ; and 4thly, 
of perjury. 

1. As to the charge of incontinence, it is set down as a part of 
his indictment at his trial, being there accused, that though he were 
both priest and archbishop, he had, contrary to the ancient, known, 
and standing laws of the church, been twice married, kept his wife 
secretly in king Henry's time, and openly in king Edward's reign. 
To all which he pleaded guilty ; and only answered, that he thought 
it was lawful for all men to marry ; part 2. Z. 2 p. 332. But 
with his good leave, what he varnished over with the plausible 
name of marriage was a sacrilegious whoredom in a holy archbishop, 
(if the church has any legislative power) and had been always look^ 
ed upon as such for many ages. 

2. Archbishop Cranmer's guilt of high treason against his lawful 
overeign queen Mary, is acknowledged not only by Dr. Burnet, 

s but all historians. The Doctor writes thus of it: 

4 An answer was written to queen Mary, signed by the archbishop 
of Canterbury, the lord chancellor, &c. letting her know that queen 

Jane was now their sovereign That the marriage between her 

father and mother was dissolved, and she had been declared illegi- 
timated and un inheritable to the crown. They therefore required 
her to give over her pretences, and not disturb the government ; 
and promised her, if she shewed herself obedient, she should find 



THE SUPPLEMENT. 



181 



them all ready to do do her any service which in duty they could/ 
Part 2. L. 2. p. 335. 

Again he writes thus, ibid. p. 257. i On the 3d of November, 
archbishop Cranmer, lord Gilford Dudley, Sec. were brought ;o 
their trial. These all confessed their indictments. Cranmer sub- 
mitted himself to the queen's mercy, &c. He was therefore guilty 
of high treason by his own confession.' 

3. His hypocrisy and dissimulation in religion, during the 
whole reign of king Henry, is a point of history so notoriously 
known, that doctor Burnet must have had a face of brass to write 
of him as he does, part 2. L 2. p. 335. * That he was a man of 
great candour, who never dissembled his opinion :' unless a man's 
being -a Lutheran in his heart, and a Papist in his outward practice, 
and that for many years together be no dissimulation, Forit is an un- 
contested fact, that, 'till the death of Henry VIII. he conformed en- 
tirely to the manner of public worship used in the church of Rome ; 
said Mass, and prayed for the souls departed as other priests ; per- 
formed all episcopal functions as other Catholic bishops did ; pro- 
fessed and preached the Roman Cotholic faith like others, and, in 
a word, appeared a zealous Catholic in all his words and actions ; 
and it behoved him highly so to do ; for his life was at stake, if he 
had done otherwise ; since all the world knows how inexorable 
Henry VIII. was upon the p >int of religion. But was Cranmer's 
belief in all this time of a piece with his practice, or his heart 
conformable to his actions t If not, Dr. Burnet is a shameful falsi- 
fier of history, and his holy saint and martyr stands justly branded 
with the infamous character of an hypocrite and dissembler of religion. 

Now I shall endeavour to shew, that his having been insincere 
in the religion he professed during the whole reign of Henry VIII. 
is not only highly probable from undeniable circumstances, but 
morally certain from positive facts related by the doctor himself. 

I prove it thus, because nothing is more common than to see 
persons of all states and conditions dissemble their religion, when 
there are strong motives of interest or fear to induce them to it, 
and a sure mark of their dissimulation is their changing their reli- 
gion, as soon as the occasion of their fear is removed, or their inte- 
rest changes. This is so undeniable a truth, that there are thou- 
sands of examples of it. But that a learned archbishop, and pri- 
mate of a national church, whom we must suppose to have for 
many years, nay, during his whole life, sincerely believed and pro- 
fessed without dissimulation the Catholic faith, that such a one, I 
say, should on a sudden change his former sentiments, and pass over 
to another religion, nay, become an eminent apostle of it, without 
any apparent motive of hope or fear to induce him to such a change, 
is as highly improbable as a thing can possibly be. 

Now let us but make the application of this to archbishop Cranmer, and 
we shall soon see what judgment we ought rationally to make of his sincerity 
or dissiunilation in religion during the life of Henry VIII. That he appear- 
ed all that time to be a true and sincere Papist in all points of Catholic faith 
excepting that of the Pope's supremacy, weich was then thrown out of 



182 



THE SUPPLEMENT. 



doors) is beyond all dispute ; but the question is whether he was sincere iu 
the other points ? and there appears the strongest presumption agaiust it, viz. 
his sudden and entire change immediately upon king Henry's death, which 
renders it more than merely probable, that he had 'till then conformed, not 
upon a conviction of conscience that the religion he then professed and prac- 
tised was the true < ne, but upon other considerations, which he thought de- 
served very well a few years dissimulation : and indeed he had the strongest 
human motives possible to draw a man into that weakness; for he was in 
possession of the highest ecclesiastical dignity in the nation, and highest fa- 
vour of his prince, which men of this world are always unwilling to part 
with, and they could not possibly be secured without his conforming in all 
things to the religion of his prince. Nay he had no other prospect before 
him than that of utter ruin and certain death, unless he took that course. — • 
Which shews plainly, (that whatever religion he was of) he had two powerful 
motives to couuterfeit the Papist during the king's life, to wit, interest and 
safety; and though this alone be not a fall proof of his dissimulation, yet 
being joined with the other circmmstances of his appearing a barefaced Pro- 
testant, as soon as these motives ceased by the king's death, and turning, im- 
mediately after it, the protector's chief tool in pushing on the pretended re- 
formation, amounts to a full evidence against him, and leaves no room to 
doubt but that this sudden change was only a throwing off the mask as soon 
as he could do it safely ; that what he had professed publicly when Henry 
was dead, he had believed, but dissembled, whilst he was alire, and so had 
played the notorious hypocrite for many years together. 

But let us hearCranmer himself give testimony for the truth, part 1. L. 2. 
p. 128. where speaking of the oath of obedience he was to take to the Pope 
at his consecration, he expressed a scruple to do it ; and gave this reason 
for it, 4 because (said he) the obligation which that oath would bring upon 
me, would bind me up from doing my duty both to God, the king, and the 
church :' and at his trial he answered Brooks, that • the bishops of Rome not 
only set up pretensions to the power of princes, but they had also made laws 
contrary to those made by God : instancing in the worship of the unkuowu 
tongue, aud the denying the chalice to the people; &c.' Now this was equi- 
valeutly the very same he had said before, to wit, that his oath would biud 
him up from his duty to God. He therefore believed even then, that is, even 
when he was just entering upon his bishopric, that the church of Rome held 
and taught many things contrary to the law of Hod; as worshipping in an 
unknown tongue, and taking away the cup from the laity; yet he himself 
practised afterwards all these things for above thirteen years together, though 
he believed them to be contrary to the law of God. And was he not then a 
hypocrite, aud dissembler of his religion. 

Now let us see what Dr. Burnet writes of him just before he was nomina- 
ted archbishop : he tells us, that when the king sent for Dr. Cranmer to be 
bishop, he was then negociatiug this business (the devorce) among the learn- 
ed men of Germany, and lived there with great familiarity with the Luther- 
ans, particularly with Osiander, whose niece he there married.' part I . p. 92 
and 123. Nay, that he had been addicted to Luther's doctrine before he went 
into Germany, when he was doctor of the university of Cambridge. For 
speaking of the difficulty the king, though ever so arbitrary, met with from 
that university, before he could get its subscription to the unlawfulness of 
his first marriage, he writes thus: * the most reasonable account I can give 
of it is, that at this time there were many in the universities, particularly at 
Cambridge, who were addicted to Luther's doctrine, and of these tlranmer 
was looked upon as the most learned; part 1. p. 62. And what is this but 
calling him a dissembling Lutheran, only in softer terms ? 

It remains now only to say something concerning his perjury, which is 
the last part of my charge against him. Dr. Burnet has furnished m*»- with 
two unanswerable instances of it. First, his taking a solemn oath of obedi- 
ence to tne Pope, in order to obtain his bulls, which oath he never intended 
to keep and broke effectually as soon as he had got them. I shall here 



THE SUPPLE MENT» 



183 



transcribe it word for word, as it is Bet down in Burnet's history, part I. p. 
123. For that which is now tendered to bishops is wholly different from it. 

' I N. N. from this hour forward shall be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, 
and to the holy church of Home, and to »..y lord the Pope and his successors 
canonic-ally entering. I shall not be of counsel nor consent that they shall 
lose either life or member, or shall be taken or suffer any violence or any 
wrong by any means. Their counsel to me credited by them, their messengers 
or letters, I shall not willingly discover to any person. The Papacy of 
liome, the rules of the holy fathers, and the legality of St. Peter I shall 
help to maintain and defend against all men. The legate of the apostolical 
see going and coming I shall honourably treat. The rights, honours, privi- 
ledges, authorities of the church of Koine, and the Pope, and his successors, 
I shall cause to be conserved, defended, augmented, and promoted. I shall 
not be in councils, treaty or auy act, in the which any thing shall be imagin- 
ed against him or the church of Rome, their rights, seats, honours, or pow- 
ers; and if I know any &uch to be m ved or compassed I shall resist it tc* 
my power ; and as soon as I can, I shall advertise him, or such as may give 
him knowledge. The rules of the holy fathers, the decrees, ordinances, sen- 
tences, dispositions, reservations, provisions, and commandments apostoli- 
cal to my power I shall keep and caused to be kept of others. Heretics, 
schismatics, and rebels to our holy father and his successors 1 shall resist 
and prosecute to my power. I shall come to the synod when I am called, 
except I be letted* by a canonical impediment. The thresholds of the apos- 
tles 1 shall visit yearly, personally or by my deputy. I shall not alieniate 
or sell ans possessions without the Pope's consent. So God help me and 
the holy evangelists.' Part 1. p. 123. 

This was the oath of fidelity Craumer took, when he actually designed to> 
separate himself from the Pope's communion, strip him of his spiritual supre- 
macy in England, and bestow it on the king. 

But 1 cannot but here admire Dr. Burnet's adm'rable skill in apologizing 
for this barefaced act of perjurv, and bringing otf his holy saint and martyr 
by contriving, before he took the oath. Mas making a solemn protestation 
that he did not intend thereby to restrain himself from any thing he Avas 
bound to either by his duty to God, the king or his country ; and he renoun- 
ced every thing in it that was contrary to any of these things*' part 1 L. 2. 
p. 129. But if this will excuse a man from the guilt of perjury, he must be 
stark mad that ever becomes guilty of it ; for with the help of this juggle, let 
an oath be ever so unlawful or wicked, he need but make a protestation pub- 
licly, or in his heart to God that he never intends to keep it, and all is well- 
Most noble casuistry ! To call God solemnly to witness that we willdo such 
or such a thing, and protest with the same breath that we intend to do nothing 
of it. 

If any one asks, whether bishop Cranmer's oath to the Pope obliged him 
then to act contrary to what he thought his duty to God, his king or country ? 
I answer, no; for an unlawful oath obliges to nothing but repentance ; and 
if he thought the oath tendered to him was an unlawful one he ought to? 
have refused it. 

But the truth of the matter is, that Cranmer had not so great a repugnance* 
to an {archbishopric, as Dr. Burnet, has most ridiculously represented him, 
since he would rather strain a point of consequeace, nay, even purchase it 
with a perjury, than not to have it. 

But he has left us on record another instance of Cranmer's perjury, w hen-,, 
being under sentence of condemnation, he was prevailed upon by the fear of 
death and hopes of pardon, to abjure Protestancy twice in a solemn manner, 
and then again to retract his double abjuration ; which has left a foul stains 
upon his memory, even amougst his best friends, in spite of all the fine glosses 
the doctor, his apologist, has endeavoured to colour it over with. But let 
ns hear him speak himself upon the matter. 

« In conclusion, (says he) as St. Peter himself had with curses, denied the 
Saviour j so he who had resisted, now almost three years, was at last over- 

* i. e. hindered. 



181 



THE SUPPLEMENT. 



come ; and human infirmity, the fear of death and the hopes that were given 
him, prevailed with him to set his hand to a paper renouncing all the errors 
of Luther nnd Z uingl i us ; acknowledging the Pope's supremacy, the corporal 
presence in the Eucharist Purgatory, prayers for departed souls, the invo- 
cation of saints. To which was added his being sorry for his former errors, 
and concluded exhorting all that had been deceived by his example or doc- 
trine, to the unity of the church, and protesting that he had signed it willing- 
ly only for the discharge of his conscience.' part 2. L. 2. p. 333. 4 When 

the second order was sent down to execute the former, he was dealt with to 
renew his subscription, and then to write the whole over again, which he al- 
so did ; all this time being under some small hopes of life.' Ibid. p. 334. 

It seems then that some very small hopes of life, sufficed to make this holy 
saint and martyr persist in his perjury and dissimulation. Rut (to make 
amends for it) when there was not the least glimpse of hope left, and dissem- 
bling conld render him no farther service, Dr. Burnet assures us he was most 
heartily sorry for what he had done ; insomuch * that when he was tied to 
the stake, and the fire kindling, he stretched forth his right hand to the flame, 
never moving it 'till it was burnt away ; which was consumed before the 
fire reached his body, sometimes saying, that unworthy haud.' Ibid. p. 336. 

This story is pretty indeed, but somewhat savouring a romance ; nor have 
I faith enough to believe that a criminal, tied fast to the stake in order to be 
burnt alive, has so much liberty of his hands allowed him, as to be able to 
stretch them so far forward from his body, that the flames shall consume the 
one without touching the other. 

But let that be as it will, our noble historian, to shew the innocence of 
this holy martyr, is likewise pleased to tell us (but his word is not gospel) 
that when his body was quite consumed, his heart was found entire among 
the ashes; whence he concludes 'that his heart had continued true though 
his hand had erred ; and that if this had happened in our church we should 
have made a mirac le of it.' Ibid. Very right, we should so without all 
dispute. Nay, the doctor needs go no farther than my ownself, for I will 
maintain it against any man of common sense, that it either was a miracle, if 
it truly happened, or is a mere tale of a tub, invented by some historian of 
as mean a reputation for his veracity as the doctor himself, and since he de- 
clares that Protestants will not own it to be a miracle. I conclude against 
him, that it is a most impudent falsehood, because if it was no miracle, it 
had no supernatural cause : and I desire the doctor to let me kuow, what 
natural cause can hinder the same fire, that has consumed the whole body to 
ashes; from consuming the heart? or v. hether an effect can be produced with- 
out any cause, either natural or supernatural, for it? 

But the doctor's concluding from it, that Cranmer's heart had continued 
true, though the hand had erred, is a piece of nonsense, unpardonable in a 
divine. For is it the heart or haud that is criminal in the sight of God? — 
Surely the heart : and therefore if either of the two were to be spared by 
the fire, the hand, as being the less criminal, deserved that favour preferably 
to the heart* 

I add, that unless Dr. Burnet himself intended to have it regarded as a 
miracle or divine testimony of Cranmer's innocence, he is the merest trifler, 
that ever put pen to paper ; for if that was not his end, how could he possi- 
bly conclude from it, that his heart was innocent? So that it is a manifest 
blunder to draw this conclusion from it, and yet deny it to be a miracle ; 
and the plain truth of the matter is, that it is a mere old wife's story. 

I now leave the reader to judge, from the facts I have clearly proved in 
this Supplement against archbishop Cranmer, whether I have any ways 
wronged him in the character given of him? Art. 3. I think I may safely 
say, no reasonable man will do me that injustice. 

FINIS. 



lt!G -0 19'sl 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




